Doctor Who To Be Axed, Again

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."

Comments

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[MemoryDragon]

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

Dr Who can outlast any producer

[LiquidCoooled]

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

[bhima]

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

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[CriminalNerd]

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

[Billosaur]

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

[crossmr]

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).

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Opportunist]

They think so. You think that wouldn't change the very moment it's necessary?

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[networkBoy]

Ditto.
I'm in.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Opportunist]

Oh c'mon, you don't want to compare daily soaps to Dr. Who, do you? I mean, you know that you need actually a set, actors and even a script for the latter?

Also, at least as far as I've gathered from daily soaps (never seen one, to be honest), there doesn't seem to be one single key figure that simply has to appear in every single episode. Now, imagine a Dr. Who episode without Dr. Who...

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[benbean]

Love and Monsters? Well, maybe he was there a little bit at each end of the episode, but still. It sucked. :-)

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the latest installment... He change into a human to hide and removed all of his experiences and replaced it with a fictious human one. All that is the doctor is stuck inside of a watch stolen by some kid... to be continued.

Actually it was one of the most boring episodes in a while.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[3chuck3]

Blame J. Michael Straczynski and Babylon 5 series, proved you can create successful long running high grade SciFi series.

Set the production and writing bar to high for other series. ie: Enterprise, Dr Who, Firefly...

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[MyNymWasTaken]

Babylon 5 was intended to be a 5 year story arc, with a preset conclusion, from inception; not a never-ending chronicle like Dr. Who.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[DavidTC]

We don't know if that's some hard and fast physical law, or a rule. Without any other Time Lords around to enforce rules, it may be completely moot.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Wookietim]

Actually, I agree - it gets difficult for anyone to do a weekly series for 4 years. I think it might be time to get some new blood into the show - I like RTD and I thank him for starting the show again, but it's time to see someone else's take on the character for awhile.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Venerable Vegetable]

Even if it was a "hard and fast physical law" it could still be moot. The whole show basically revolves around breaking the laws of physics anyway.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[TavisJohn]

I think there is a standard limit to regeneration cycles. HOWEVER the heart of the Tardis can do amazing things... Sooo They could do something involving that..

And The Face of Boe this season did tell the good Doctor that he was not alone... So maybe there is another timelord out there that could take over...

The possibilities are endless. The only limits are the ones that the writers have when they have writers block. (And ratings)

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[kalirion]

Blame J. Michael Straczynski and Babylon 5 series, proved you can create successful long running high grade SciFi series.

I thought Star Trek: TNG was already a successful long running high grade SciFi series?

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Thumper_SVX]

That wasn't the first time rules were made up on the fly in the show, and it wasn't the last. The regeneration thing was really fabricated at the last minute to explain a change of Doctor. There have also been enough hints dropped in the series, novels (though not all of them could be considered canon) and audio plays that Who is not "just" a time-lord but maybe something else entirely. He might reach regeneration 13 and pronounce "Well, that was unexpected." That would probably then allow a new storyline where Who tries to find out WHY he regenerated a 13th time.

But it doesn't really matter that much; most of the rules that were set in the series have changed over time or been outright ignored. The regeneration thing might be enough of a "biggie" that they'll have to find a reason for it, but I suspect it could be easily pulled off. After all, this is Doctor Who; part science fiction, part dinner theatre and part mystical fantasy. All bets are off.

Oh, and as for the story? Codswollop. I no longer live in England but when I was a teen living in England the only two reasons I read The Sun were (a) for the entertainment value and (b) for the breasts on page 3.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[tonejava]

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

Well they easily broke that rule with the Master time and time again.... And there was nothing said about what point in her life the Rani had reached.

Then there is the so called time war that apparently wiped out all the timelords, yadi yadi yada.

Hey i like the new series, not too crazy about the breaking rules but if it keeps it alive for now then I'm in as well.

Besides there are alot of spin offs out there they can invest in as well, maybe the Faction Paradox war can breach our space once more?

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Anonymous Coward]

And The Face of Boe this season did tell the good Doctor that he was not alone... So maybe there is another timelord out there that could take over...

Well, the Doctor did say that there were no other Time Lords. He also said that the Face of Boe was not lying, too.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

There are also plenty of ways they could keep the 12 regeneration limit and still continue the show. The Doctor could give the TARDIS to a companion, like Christopher Eccleston did (temporarily) at the end of his run, as a farewell gift. The Doctor could discover he has a son or daughter that he didn't know about, who takes over when the Doctor finally dies. He could get separated in time from the TARDIS and a companion, who then spend a season or two searching through history and the universe for him. There's always the old clone standby.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing could be further the truth. The predecessor to Davies (also a walking perfume shop) was the main reason that the original series was cancelled. Turner did make some improvements between Baker and Davison's tenures, but he refused to leave when it was time for him to go, and he dragged the show down with him. Doctor Who can't take many more of these sorts of people.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[Hal_Porter]

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

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of obsessed fans cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has been revealed.

Re:Dr Who can outlast any producer

[kalirion]

Flamebait? How in the hell is praising Star Trek: The Next Generation considered to be "Flaimbait"?

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[crossmr]

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.

Pinch of salt

[Baljet]

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

Re:Pinch of salt

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[simm1701]

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

[palewook]

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

[hal2814]

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

Re:Pinch of salt

[Volante3192]

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."

Re:Pinch of salt

[Hoi Polloi]

Sorry, I haven't gotten to the article yet, I'm still on page 3.

Re:Pinch of salt

[Dogtanian]

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! I wouldn't wipe my arse with The Sun personally. Mainly because I'd be worried that some half-baked inaccurate rumour-mongering story about Doctor Who would come off on my backside. ;-)

Something is better than nothing

[VincenzoRomano]

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

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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

[91degrees]

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

Re:Something is better than nothing

[AndyboyH]

And I'd like to chastise Russell for his efforts and say good riddance to a show that molested the corpse of a well loved franchise.

Doctor Who was a glorious series originally. It was dark and subtle and magnificent without too much self-importance, and it remained fantasy escapism.

The new version is Doctor Who lite: for the ADD generation. Fart humour, politics that are transparently disguised as the average housebrick, and commercialisation on a massive scale (no I don't want Dalek bubble bath, a Cyberman helmet, or a UV pen disguised as the sonic screwdriver, thankyou.) made a mockery of the original series. Joking that a jukebox is an iPod, and then playing Britney Spear's Toxic only goes to demonstrate precisely how out of touch Russell and his writing team are with the spirit of the original show. I'll give the cast their due - they tried their best, and both 'new' doctors could have fitted in with the old series well, if their scripts weren't garbage.

The only remotely satisfying episode the new series offered us was the creepy 'gasmask kids' episode - which was clever without becoming the shambles the rest of the series has become.

It's a sad day to know that new doctor who will never regain the glory and prestige of the old series, but then that's tempered with a glad feeling that it won't sink any lower into the steaming pile of excrement that's consumed it.

Re:Something is better than nothing

[palewook]

BBC has already responded, and said Dr Who will continue past the 4th series. Possibly with a new producer or the same, its undecided at this time.

Dang

[dghcasp]

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

[Slashamatic]

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.

Re:Dang

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're wrong on Sylvester McCoy being a weak Doctor. None of them have been weak, in my opinion.

bummer.

[apodyopsis]

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.

[tumutbound]

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.

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

[hal2814]

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.

Re:bummer.

[dylan_-]

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

Because you were younger. I was up in Scotland visiting my sister and, while watching Doctor Who, I was delighted to see my 8 year old niece hugging a large cushion and hiding her face behind it whenever the monsters appeared! That is what Doctor Who is all about!

Re:bummer.

[david.given]

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

There is. Twelve. He's currently on #10, so he's running out. (We've actually met #12, in the Trial of a Time Lord arc.)

The Master has run out of regenerations, and has to steal other people's bodies.

Re:bummer.

[Rob T Firefly]

IIRC Shalka was meant to be, first and foremost, a 40th Anniversary celebration type of thing. There was the distant possibility of it maybe going to series, but by the time that even reached the discussion phase the 2005 series came about and it was a moot point.

Re:bummer.

[UncleGizmo]

...which is how the good Doctor could remain in perpetuity as well, if you think of it. Interesting plot point could be the ethical dilemmas faced with the Doctor "stealing" someone else's body!

Re:bummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's on incarnation number 10, after his 9th regeneration. So, three more Doctors left.

Re:bummer.

[Psmylie]

I think it's 12 regenerations, meaning 13 total incarnations of the Doctor (the first, plus 12 new ones). As far as regenerations go, there is some evidence that the limit to regenerations was self-imposed by the Time Lords (They offered the Master a whole new set of 12 regenerations to help the Doctor in The Five Doctors special). With the Time Lords gone, that restriction may or may not still apply.

Regardless, a clever enough writing staff could write their way out of that corner with no problems. A couple of possibilities that I just came up with are:

When absorbing the energy from Rose at the end of the first new season, the Doctor's regeneration cycle may have been reset, making David's Doctor the first of a new series of regenerations

The Doctor could stumble across some ancient artifact of Rassilon or Omega or someone, which grants extra regeneration cycles.

The Face of Bo, or some other entity, could grant the Doctor extra regenerations in order to keep him around

Re:bummer.

[evolveit]

Actually they've left a loophole (not that they couldn't invent one) It seems the producers that worked with Tom Baker decided to create one well in advance. Remember the one and only episode (at least that I can remember) where The Doctor is alone? Episode titled, "The Deadly Asssassian". The Master is at the end of his 12th regeneration. To cheat death, he attempts to use The Eye of Harmony which is the prime source of the Time Lords power, meaning it is (or was) a critical link to the Time Lord technology including the Time Travel ability (as in Tardis or whatever they called the latest model before the destruction of Gallefrey). The Time Lords may have been destroyed but I suspect that if a 13th doctor is reached they'll pull out the Eye of Harmony, the Sash and Rod of Rassilon, and remember that The Doctor is the only Time Lord since Rassilon to actually hold the Great Key (see the Invasion of Time, 4th Doctor again). So although there is an official limit, the producers seemed to have planned for this LONG in advance. Of course the Master went from being Time Lord to basically Ghoul who may still retain "lingering" powers of the Keeper of Traken (2nd last Episode of Tom Baker..wow lots of mentions of ways to cheat even Time Lord death with the writers there...) which apparently includes the ability to take over the bodies of others. Anyway, the Sun is not known for having reliable stories (or perhaps their stories change peoples original decision just to spite them..who knows...) so I'm not convinced they will terminate The Doctor yet. He's becoming a British Icon (yes he was already with Baker but...Tennant seems to be doing him one up with Davies leading the team.). that said, I believe Baker left as Turner came in and managed to mangle what had made Doctor Who so Popular. So a new producer could lead the show towards a slow painful demise. (like the last time the show died off) but I wouldn't put any stock into the Sun...yet. Time will tell all thing...

Re:bummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't watched more than a few clips of the new DW series. Are all of the aliens planets still located in old UK quarries?

Re:bummer.

[Drooling Iguana]

When they finally go to an alien planet instead of just hanging around Earth engaging in soap-opera antics with the Companion's family, I'll let you know.

Re:bummer.

[mink]

They have done it several times.

That's the British way

[elrous0]

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

[Drall]

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

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:That's the British way

[Aladrin]

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

[imsabbel]

"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

[Himring]

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

[will_die]

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

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

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.

Re:That's the British way

[Ed Avis]

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

Re:That's the British way

[Zelos]

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

[Himring]

...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

[aadvancedGIR]

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

[brown-eyed slug]

I wanted more.

Re:That's the British way

[Taeolas]

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

[Silver Sloth]

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

[nosferatu1001]

Fawlty towers was 2 series actually....

still have to agree, 12 episodes of perfection :)

Re:That's the British way

[Anonymous Coward]

"...I agree with you about not wanting it to jump the shark, but IMO they tend to can programs before they actually peak. .."

I don't think you understood the OP. It isn't that the Brits don't like to wait until a program sucks before it goes. They don't even like to go on a downer. That means they have to go on an upper. Look at a ballistic curve if you don't believe me.

Given that you can't make a precise cut 2/3 of the way through the 8th episode of series 3, that means that if you think that your series 1 was great, your series 2 was better, but you will run out of puff somewhere during series 3, then series 2 will be your last.

It's actually not so much a British thing, more a European thing, though we will only see it in English language output. I think it's related to their idea that entertainment should be art, while we see it as a business. So Tolkien just writes a few great books, while we churn out thousands of repetitive Superman comics....

Re:That's the British way

[mlk]

Fox complete a season?! When did that happen?

Re:That's the British way

[JasterBobaMereel]

Lost had a preplanned number of seasons .... One maybe two, three if it's popular, four if we can get away with it ...?

Re:That's the British way

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Hmmmm...I don't agree with this. I jumped ship about halfway through season three, but caught up on most of the episodes last week. The problem is that Lost has shown itself uneven and inconsistant with episode writing,some episodes are unmissable others are dreadful. I enjoyed the first two seasons immensley but season three started off so badly that I just don't care how it all pans out. [/pure opinion]

Re:That's the British way

[Hoi Polloi]

Seinfeld did that.

Re:That's the British way

[RealGrouchy]

FYI, a LOT of British series do this sort of thing (limited runs, going out on top voluntarily)... We Americans could learn a lot from these Brits

Yes, but can we find a way to milk this technique to its last drop?

- RG>

Re:That's the British way

[zippthorne]

We have TWO years of lost. Stretched out over the next three in an apparent effort to make the fans go, "Meh, I'll just wait for the DVD set" and get the series cancelled early.

Re:That's the British way

[sqldr]

I read an article in Private Eye about the "curse" of American shows. Whenever a big blockbusting show comes out, there's already a contract in place to make 3 seasons, regardless of whether the authors have a plot, or even any idea of how to continue it. So after a great first season, the second season is a license to print money, no matter how bad it is. The BBC (yadda yadda) doesn't have these constraints. (here comes the license-vs-subscription-vs-advertisements flamewar..)

Re:That's the British way

[WATYF]

Yeah, I don't think Heroes has jumped the shark either. Sure, the finale wasn't as good as it could have been, but I don't see that as a reason to throw in the towel.

As for Lost, I totally disagree about it being "Lost". I've hung in there with a *lot* of serial dramas (X-Files, Alias, etc), and kept watching to the end, and it's always pretty clear when the series starts to tank. I haven't seen any of those signs from Lost. Yeah, it's hard to keep up with, but they're surprisingly good at keeping continuity between the episodes (and even seasons) and they're still keeping you wondering what's going on and what's gonna happen next, even though they've revealed so much up to this point.

I don't know how anyone could have watched the Lost finale and thought that the show has tanked. That was a seriously good two hours of TV.

WATYF

Re:That's the British way

[jollyreaper]

Well, I haven't seen a lick of Lost yet. I think I'll just hold off and see how the show resolves before starting it. I'm with you on having been burned. X-Files was a tragic waste of a quality show. Surface was great but was canceled way too soon. Dead Like Me was cool and canceled early. I hear Sopranos' total run was pretty much 4/5 and 5/5 with only a few clunkers per season. I'm going to enjoy getting into that now, especially knowing that it doesn't turn lame towards the end.

I think a lot of these shows would be better if they would focus on treating each season as a novel. Beginning, middle, end, and characters can carry over into the next one. What I like about Heroes season 1 is that the initial storyline is resolved. You've got an exploding city, the explosion is prevented. None of this "let's drag the bomb plot out five years" crap. With that initial prime plot out of the way, there's room for more questions to be explored and answered while still having main plots to drive the season. Buffy was organized quite well in that regard. Each season had stand-alone episodes as well as arc ones that led to the resolution of the story with the season's Big Bad.

Something else I'd like to see them do with an ensable series is Doonsbury it. Yeah, characters and situations get stale after a while so that's why you split up your core group of characters and let them live their lives. You can hop the story's focus from one character to another as they encounter interesting things, you'll get new characters they encounter, etc. The whole thing stays fresh and interesting. This would work best logistically with an animated show since a stable of good voice actors can provide proper voices for tens of dozens of characters vs. live action where you have to keep an army of actors on call. South Park has sort of failed in this regard. Back in season 1 when they were getting huge media buzz, Parker and Stone said that the idea they had is that they'd want the show to really change and grow from the initial premise. The quote was something along the lines of "In ten years, we want people looking back and saying 'hey, you remember when South Park was just about some kids in a mountain town?'" A very cool idea.

Re:That's the British way

[PCM2]

Agreed. I enjoyed the first season and the second. The third was just horrible, all the way through. I found myself pounding the arms of the couch wishing I could scream at the writers, "Just get rid of the Others already! Just write them out of the show, all of them!" I can't imagine a show could take more of a wrong turn than Lost has. And the season finale doesn't give me much hope for season 4.

Re:That's the British way

[jez9999]

Couldn't disagree more. The pathetic number of FT episodes is annoying. I'd like to watch 50 or 100. :-)

Re:That's the British way

[elrous0]

You should know that, had they continued, they would have introduced a new character, "Cousin Oliver," in the sixth season.

Re:That's the British way

[pelrun]

Or, just perhaps, they're cutting out the crap "gotta make this season last the full 24 episodes" filler they obviously had in there this season.

The Sun? Don't make me laugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[bigbigbison]

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.

[Baljet]

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.

[bigbigbison]

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.

[spike1]

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.

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

[Larry Lightbulb]

Though Little Britain did have a couple of radio series (http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/little_ britain.html) before moving to TV.

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

[spike1]

Indeed, quite a few BBC comedies get their first airing on radio.
On the hour became the day today, goodness gracious me, people like us, on the town with the league of gentlemen...

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

[garethwi]

The only thing it gets right is the publication date

Seeing as on the rare occasions it does get something right, the story is already ancient, one could argue that not even the publication date is correct.

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

[mlk]

A good chunk of BBC 3 was on BBC Radio 4 first.

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

[mink]

We enjoyed Torchwood (my wife and I) but we have re-named it to Torturewood after the run of episodes around the "camping trip".

The show pretty much tuned into a round robin "make this character miserable and then kind of resolve it" of the cast.

I will watch more, but I will mercilessly make fun of some of the dumber things the writers think is "Awesome!" in the dialog/plot department.

That's dumb

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:That's dumb

[maztuhblastah]

The only constant in the cast is the Doctor and he can "regenerate" every time the actor wants to move on to other things.

Well... technically, a Time Lord can only regenerate 12 time, and we're on the Tenth Doctor now. That said, I'm sure that if the show continued past #12 that the writers would find some plausible explanation. Come to think of it, I don't think that the 12 regeneration limit has actually been mentioned on screen, so they could be fine anyways...

Re:That's dumb

[jollyreaper]

The only constant in the cast is the Doctor and he can "regenerate" every time the actor wants to move on to other things.

Well... technically, a Time Lord can only regenerate 12 time, and we're on the Tenth Doctor now. That said, I'm sure that if the show continued past #12 that the writers would find some plausible explanation. Come to think of it, I don't think that the 12 regeneration limit has actually been mentioned on screen, so they could be fine anyways... He's the Doctor. I'm sure he'll just look up the cheat codes somewhere. Daleks? IDKFA, bitch. :)

Re:That's dumb

[Elf-friend]

The fact that Time Lords have thirteen incarnations (original one plus twelve regenerations) has been mentioned on screen, and not just in the movie, either, IIRC. However, I think you're right that if they get to number thirteen they will have (and may already have) a contingency plan in case the show is still popular. The Master found a way to get around that limit, so I should think the Doctor could as well (and in a less evil way than The Master).

Hopefully that's a way off, anyhow, since: A) I hope they get at least a few more seasons out of David Tennant (though I haven't seen season three yet, being in America), and B) every Doctor except Eccleston and McGann (special cases, I'd say) has lasted at least two seasons plus (of the others, Colin Baker had the shortest run at two full seasons plus one four-episode serial). Even if Tennant were to leave after season four, I'd expect at least another five seasons before they'd even get to the Thirteenth Doctor.

Doctor Who-Gives-a-Rats-Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather watch Ghost Hunters!

American remake? ;-)

[Terao]

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? ;-)

[CmdrGravy]

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

Re:American remake? ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently there's a US remake of The IT Crowd in the works. Fuck me, I just shake my head. Next they'll try remaking Monty Python or Fawlty Towers.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[gigne]

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, 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.

The Sun

[Stevecrox]

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

[Billosaur]

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

[sa1lnr]

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.

The Dirty Digger doesn't like the BBC.

Re:The Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

They do not give this out anymore.

Re:The Sun

[cubicle phobia]

But I bet they'll know.

Re:The Sun

[nomadic]

I'm betting this is anouther in a long line of Sun articles designed to sell newspapers

Uhhhh, is this really the kind of thing that has the whole nation watching?

They're plain lazy louts

[Pao|o]

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

[Paulrothrock]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:They're plain lazy louts

[Anspen]

... And all of those show had dreadfull seasons (apart from often having bad/filler episode in the *good* seasons). A couple in the case of TNG & DS9, about 5 for X-files and I don't think there ever was a good season for Voyager.

Re:They're plain lazy louts

[grapeshot]

Actually, these Doctor Who shows are fairly simple, with a limited set of regular characters, and with what is increasingly looking like only a stock set of situations. Sure, the WRITING might be better than Voyager or Stargate SG-1 (which isn't saying much), but plots and dialog are but one of many elements that have to be overseen in making a production work.

The complexity of Doctor Who's production doesn't look all that different than what can be seen on the screen for any other typical show -- here in the States, that is. There aren't more shots and edits, and there isn't any particularly fancy camera shots. There isn't that much more CGI, or costumes, creatures and suits, either. There's virtually NO alien worlds created; most of the stories take place on earth -- or historical earth, with only the occasional alien (or supernatural being) showing up to menace the earth. The more complicated all of these are, the more difficult they are to execute and tend to cause more shooting and re-shooting -- and tend to put more pressure on the production team to meet the schedule and budget.

I'm not dissing Doctor Who, I'm just saying that finally Doctor Who's production values come pretty close to matching the typical production values one sees in a Hollywood product. But it only barely meets that standard, and certainly doesn't go beyond that. Therefore I think it is perfectly valid to ask how come Mr. Davies' production team is burning out with only four 13-episode series to produce? Yeah, sure, he's also the producer for the Confidentials, and, if I understand correctly, the Captain Jack shows. But these are all still 13-episode series. There are producers in America that routinely produce two or more 22+ episode shows simultaneously AND for a decade or more (look at Donald Belisario, Stephen Cannell, or Jerry Bruckheimer, just to name a few). When Mr. Davies has produced a scifi show as complex and mutlifaceted as Farscape, with four 22 episode seasons, each increasingly complex and with an ever expanding cast, THEN he can complain about "burnout".

Having said all that, it's probably also fair to say that he is unlikely to have the same amount of or DEPTH of resources at his disposal as are available in Hollywood, or in the Canadian version of Hollywood, Vancouver. As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this reincarnation of the Doctor Who show is virtually the Beeb's first experiment with the "showrunner" concept of production, and a showrunner probably can only do as much as he/she has the staff for.

Re:They're plain lazy louts

[khallow]

Eh, it's somewhat better quality than most of those shows, but I wouldn't put it on the level of TNG - even though I like the show better than TNG, I find the plot, acting, and writing to be lower quality which is a shame. Those were the great strengths of the old Doctor Who series though obviously not consistently applied.

For example, the werewolf episode had a stretch where the Doctor and allies were chased around by said werewolf. It ran something like a video game. Not very exciting. And the villian in the black hole episode (where everyone chilled out on a mysterious asteroid on the edge of oblivion. Great buildup but the resolution was corny though reasonably brilliant. I like some of the bold steps like the Doctor's romantic relationships or alien invasions and such actually changing modern Earth, but some shallowness has crept in as well.

Re:They're plain lazy louts

[mjwx]

That's because when you watch a 20 episode American series there are 3 or 4 good episodes and 16 or 18 fillers (See series 3 of BSG for a good example).

With a good British series you may get between 6 and 13 episodes a series but a vast majority of them are pure gold. I pay the same amount for a series of Stargate as I do for a series of Red Dwarf out of the stargate DVD's there are 4 maybe 5 good episodes (plenty of decent episodes and a few poor ones) but with red dwarf there are 6 30 minute episodes with each minute being pure comedy gold. Doctor Who has a few filler episodes but the good to filler ratio is far better then an American series

In my defence, I like Stargate, its one of the few good US tv shows ever produced (relative measure, you yanks produce a fair few good TV shows but they are completely smothered by the sheer volume of crap that is produced along with it, like law and order Cat tray inspection unit). I would have also compared a British comedy to an American comedy but I cant seem to find any American comedies.

Re:They're plain lazy louts

[Paulrothrock]

Maybe it's on par with seasons 6 or 7 of TNG, but there has never been an episode of Dr. Who that has come close to sucking as much as anything from the first season of TNG.

Seeing Wesley Crusher say "I *never* want to feel like that again!" after being drunk was a low point, and that's compared to the Orbiting-strange-planet let's-beam-down redshirt-dies Kirk-screws-alien Kirk-fights-Spock Kirk-says-something-witty formula of TOS. *shudder*

LOL, Heroes

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[ThoreauHD]

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

[AP2k]

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

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[Tony Hoyle]

Even Heroes?

Scifi channel generally sucks, but they do occasionally show some decent stuff.

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[evolveit]

The Americans make Doctor Who?!? To quote another famous golden (literally) Sci-Fi character, "OOO, How Horrid." The Doctor Who movie they made was bad/cheesy enough, couldn't believe the BBC allowed it to be broadcasted. Sorry but when it comes to writing for TV (let alone movies) it compares to American vs. European Cake: way to much sugar in the American cake. Why? its cheap, addictive and fast to produce. I'll stick with my European desserts AND entertainment thanks. (Okay, UK is not strictly Europe, but they don't cover everything in sugar, cheese and grease..hey is THAT why Americans are the king of fast food, bad TV and more recently, poor leadership?)

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[Gigaflynn]

for all the americans here who dont know about The Sun

1) it is a burning ball of high pressure gas, millions of miles away

2) it is a really shite newspaper, the only good content in it being Katie downes on P.3

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[Glyphstream]

They do do some decent stuff occasionally, but only in TV series. And every series they do decently either goes down the drain or gets cancelled.

I wouldn't let them touch Dr. Who with an infinity foot pole.

Re:Let the SCi FI Channel Make it

[Magickcat]

What little charm remains to Doctor Who is entirely lost to the American monster that is the American television industry - just look at that awful test pilot and you'll see what you Americans deserve when it comes Doctor Who. Anyone who suggest that the Sci-Fi channel can make it deserves another twenty years of Star Trek with continual Nazi episdodes and/or trapped in the Holodesk stories. If it wasn't for the last film, I'd say that you didn't deserve Batman after what you've done to him!

It would end up as a cross between McGuiver and Start Trek. There'd be a alien love affair in every episode, compulsory self congratualtory moral superiority and all problems would be solved by reversing the polarity on the sonic screwdriver. Bad guys would have the doctor pontify against them in each episode before sending them to space jail and the Tradis would become a flying sports car.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[BlackCobra43]

Well if you read the text...

You must be new here.

Unhappy...

[Notquitecajun]

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...

[Turn-X Alphonse]

"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...

[erroneous]

So, about December 1963 then?

Honestly, were they ever anything else?

Re:Unhappy...

[mink]

"Rose had access to the entire span of the universe, she saw, knew and controlled everything, then completely erased them, but nope still survive."

It could be that the Daleks that were in the fissure that the cybermen came through were outside of space/time and therefore Rose had no knowldge of them when she was erasing the Supreme Dalek and his fleet. It would appear they were not in this dimension/space-time when she had the power of the heart.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Take the report with an enormous grain of salt

[Hwatzu]

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 -- which the BBC has roundly denied. 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

[simong]

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

[Slashamatic]

...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.

Re:Take the report with an enormous grain of salt

[palmersperry]

To be exact, in order to get Sky you must pay more than the TV license fee in addition to paying the TV license fee.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[jimstapleton]

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.

Wait... What?

[FlyingSquidStudios]

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

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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.

Re:Good

[Sanguis Mortuum]

I have to agree with you about the Deleks. The first time one appeared in the new series' was excellent imo, but each other time has been lame, especially the last time, a Human/Dalek hybrid? Oh dear...

Re:Good

[WATYF]

I don't know if this is actually gonna happen, but I do agree with you that Season 3 has been a let down. Part of it is that I agree about the Daleks being overplayed. But mainly, I just don't like Martha. The character just seems so over the top. All the drama seems forced. And the Doctor seems like he's always pissed off now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still watching, but man... Rose was twice the companion that Martha is. I was sad to see her go.

WATYF

Re:Good

[dpilot]

I guess this answers my question... What happened to Rose, because TFA referred to her as "ex star".

But then SciFi network is still stuck on the second season, and the available Canadian stations quit carrying Dr. Who. But then again, I've only seen "The Christmas Invasion" so far out of the second season, the rest of the episodes are chewing up space on my Myth box.

Re:Good

[Turn-X Alphonse]

SPOILERS BELOW!!

Rose ends up in an alternative dimension the Doctor can't travel to at the end of Season 2. It wasn't a half bad ending for her, but she's basically a wreck cause her life collapsed and she's left alone with no way of contacting The doctor.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree on several of your points. Yes, the Daleks are overplayed. Yes, get that TARDIS off damn Earth for a while. And when I say Earth, I mean Earth - future & past, New Earth, New New New Earth, etc. etc.

I wouldn't mind Martha so much if she didn't have a family and wasn't trying to get into the Doctor's pants. I don't mean that she tried, but you can tell she is hurt when he convorts with other women or talks about Rose. I want an old style companion in the TARDIS - no family ties or at least non we know about and no desire for the Doctor other than adventure.

As for being pissed off all the time, maybe its a primer to show how the Valard (sp?) from Trial of the Time Lords comes into being.

And as for Davies leaving, as long as his replacement has an understanding for the show and continues to acknowledge the shows entire history - not just the recent incarnation, I don't see it being much of an issue. But as everyone else has stated, the ratings for this show are too high yet to consider cancellation.

Re:Good

[Elf-friend]

...SciFi network is still stuck on the second season....

Yes, if by "stuck," you mean "in re-runs." They have actually shown the whole season at this point. Season three is supposed to start sometime this summer or fall.

Hope I'm the first to call

[cordsie]

... 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.

Re:Hope I'm the first to call

[Dunbal]

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?

      It wouldn't be the first time.

Re:Hope I'm the first to call

[KokorHekkus]

...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...

And add profits to that from the fact that it's been sold to and premiered in (so far): Canada, Australia, South Korean, New Zealand, France, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Hong Kong, Russia and a slew of middle easter countries as well. Probably missed some major countries... don't know how to count BBC America though so I left it out of the "sold to" list.

Re:Hope I'm the first to call

[Elf-friend]

...don't know how to count BBC America though so I left it out of the "sold to" list.

It's been airing on SciFi, too, which should certainly count as "sold to." SciFi is also basic cable, which BBC America is not. Actually, SciFi is the primary outlet for it in the U.S., and is a season ahead of BBC America: SciFi finished the second new season last winter, while BBC America just got through with the first season this spring. Season three is set to start airing on SciFi sometime this summer/fall, I believe.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[blacksway]

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.

Sun journalism 101

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Sun journalism 101

[wsanders]

Well, I don't mean to defend the Sun but Davies talks about the 16 hour days all the time in the "Who Confidential" pieces they run after the main show here in the US (they are rolling out the Eccleston series just now on PBS.)

It's technically complicated, insanely great TV, and after a run like Davies has had I'd feel entitled to take a hiatus. Who knows? Ultimately the series is a commercial property . . .

Re:Sun journalism 101

[91degrees]

I think that might possibly be the element of news this is based on.

Davies may well take a break from Who, but that isn't going to end the series. The production team need to be good and to know the premise well but the BBC could replace all of them if they needed to. The only problem is, not all of the suits at the BBC know Doctor Who. Russell T. Davies does. I'd rather see him have some say in who his successor is than have a BBC executive possibly give it to someone who isn;t going to give it the care it deserves.

Standard operating procedure...

[TermII]

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*).

Hasn't started sucking?

[TheFlyingWonka]

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

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[jollyreaper]

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:Hasn't started sucking?

[TomHandy]

Some people were discussing this question (why Peter didn't just fly away himself), and someone suggested that his powers must be similar to Ultraboy from the Legion of Superheroes (this conversation had a geek factor of 12), only able to use one recalled power at a time. I would guess this would make him different from, say, Rogue, who if I recall correctly could use multiple powers at the same time.

Anyway, this seems plausible to me. I didn't see every episode of this show, but I don't think he was ever shown using multiple powers at the same time.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[jollyreaper]

Some people were discussing this question (why Peter didn't just fly away himself), and someone suggested that his powers must be similar to Ultraboy from the Legion of Superheroes (this conversation had a geek factor of 12), only able to use one recalled power at a time. I would guess this would make him different from, say, Rogue, who if I recall correctly could use multiple powers at the same time. I don't know who Ultraboy is so my geek factor here probably drops to a 10.

But as I said above, if he cannot use multiple powers at the same time, he would have to die in the blast. It was explicitly stated in the show that his survival of the blast would not be due to a hero being immune to the effects of his own power (i.e. iceman never getting frostbite, the human torch never getting burns) but because he got the healing factor from the cheerleader. We saw that radiation guy never nuked himself with his own ability but he'd never tried to create a nuclear blast before. So if the healing factor could work, flight should be able to as well. Unless we want to get really nerdy and say that the healing factor works through the autonomic nervous system and is always on whereas flight requires direct concentration and is controlled through the sympathetic nervous system...I suppose we could go there but biology majors would club us to death for getting it all wrong.

On a slightly related tangent, anybody else notice the similarities between geeks retconning scifi (especially comics) and theologians retconning their dogma?

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group (now known as homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance. Try reading the above in Comic Book Man voice. If you want to see something that makes the debate over ridged and non-ridged Klingons seem rational, just look at the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[Belial6]

They did show him use multiple powers. In the future, he was invisible, and used telekinesis's at the same time. I grudgingly went with the idea that he didn't fly himself away because he was in a great deal of pain, and was using all of his concentration not to explode. A little like why you wouldn't call 911 if you accidentally spilled gas all over yourself, and caught on fire. You would be way to busy writhing in agony to do the calm and rational thing.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[ezzewezza]

Heroes suffers strongly from an inability to live up to its own hype. Forget the commercials and all the crap they pump into the show, just watch the story build up and then fall completely flat in an oh-so-anticlimactic fashion. It happens repeatedly through small plot bumps through the series and then rears its head in an ugly fashion with the season finale.

[spoilers ahead?]
And that wasn't even the smallest problem with the finale. The characters became completely disassociated with their build-up through earlier episodes. Sylar goes from being able to control 100 pieces of glass simultaneously, to not being able to withstand an attack from two different people. Peter can fly, but requires Nathan to carry him up and out of harm's way. Mohinder states in one episode that he's a geneticist, not a doctor, and then later acts as a paramedic for D.L. and others.

I still hold hope for the show. I hope that they can get their act together and do some decent writing. It was an enjoyable, albeit absolutely aggravating, show to watch. I'm willing to accept all of the fantastical parts of the show, but such disingenuous writing, changing characters to allow for some poorly-though-out plot line is completely bogus.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[lilo_booter]

It was explicitly stated in the show that his survival of the blast would not be due to a hero being immune to the effects of his own power (i.e. iceman never getting frostbite, the human torch never getting burns) but because he got the healing factor from the cheerleader. Can you recall by who and to whom they were talking? I have a dim recollection that it was related to Nathan by his mother in an effort to say 'don't worry, Peter will be fine' - thus convincing Nathan that his allowing it to happen wouldn't hurt his brother...

But maybe she was lying or guessing?

The main thrust of the save the cheerleader arc was to prevent Sylar from becoming indestructible - Peter acquiring that skill was coincidental. It's quite possible that neither brother survive...

FWIW, I thought the finale was excellent, as was the rest of the show. Am looking forward to season 2 (and would even be happy if both brother's survived :-)).

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[osu-neko]

why Peter didn't just fly away himself

Why do people ask this question? I mean, Hello people! Did you not notice that Peter has lost control?! If he was still in control of his powers, he wouldn't need to fly off, he'd just not go nuclear to begin with! Duh...

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[osu-neko]

Sylar goes from being able to control 100 pieces of glass simultaneously, to not being able to withstand an attack from two different people.

Sylar can also see the future at that point. He knows he'll have the opportunity to drag himself into the sewers (or someone else will drag him off), and might even know what happens if he doesn't let Hiro stab him, and maybe that's certain death at the hands of some other character. The facts are that (a) Sylar can see the future, and (b) Sylar is hurt but not killed in this face-off, but very well could have been if things had gone differently. Keep these two things in mind before you start criticizing Sylar for not acting in the way you think he should have (i.e. flinging Hiro away BEFORE getting stabbed), an action that might have been suicidal on Sylar's part.

Peter can fly, but requires Nathan to carry him up and out of harm's way.

Peter can sometimes fly. Peter can also completely lose control of his powers. Um, part of the climax involves precisely this happening. Did you miss that part? If Peter was still in control of his powers, he's have no need to fly off to begin with. He's just stop the reaction and they'd all head to the bar at that point because it's Miller time. There's only any kind of emergency going at all because Peter has lost control. Complaining at this point that Peter doesn't use his powers in a particular way is incredibly obtuse.

Mohinder states in one episode that he's a geneticist, not a doctor, and then later acts as a paramedic for D.L. and others.

Bones stubbornly complains that he's not an escalator, but he still helps the woman up. Molly says the other doctors are better than him, she doesn't say OMG you have no idea what you're doing, do you? You know why not? Because he clearly does have some idea, despite any disclaimers he may have when someone tries to get him to do a job he doesn't want to do.

Incidentally, paramedics aren't doctors, either. Does that make them unqualified to be paramedics? If not, why do you think it makes Mohinder unqualified? He clearly knows more about the topic that most paramedics, even if it's not his day job.

The show isn't perfect, but the most common complains seem to come from the direction of people who just weren't paying attention. The viewers overlook things far more often than the writers, it seems.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[ezzewezza]

So Sylar may have had the foresight to do what he did. I'll accept that as a path I hadn't considered. That Peter can't fly is rubbish as far as I'm concerned. He's demonstrated control over it and strong control over many of his other powers. There is one power he seems incapable of controlling, and that's the radioactivity.

I suppose it's possible that Mohinder is also trained in first aid, though that's certainly not made clear anywhere prior to him attending to D.L. Beyond that, paramedics are paramedics and are trained in first response. Geneticists aren't. I'm not sure how there's any confusion in this beyond semantic nitpicking (doctor vs. paramedic).

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[ceejayoz]

But as I said above, if he cannot use multiple powers at the same time, he would have to die in the blast. It was explicitly stated in the show that his survival of the blast would not be due to a hero being immune to the effects of his own power (i.e. iceman never getting frostbite, the human torch never getting burns) but because he got the healing factor from the cheerleader.

He didn't meet the cheerleader in the alternate timeline episode (the only reason he came into contact with her in the story timeline was Hiro going back in time from the alternate future to get him to), yet he'd survived the blast.

I suspect he's just as immune as Ted was.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[DavidTC]

That's what I assumed. The idea that Peter could just fly out of there when he could just barely keep himself under control is silly.

Peter's been shown to have pretty poor control of his powers to start with, and Ted's power is pretty hard to control when you're angry. Doing something else during that is rather implausible.

I'm a little amazed that everyone didn't immediately get that.

Re:Hasn't started sucking?

[jollyreaper]

Can you recall by who and to whom they were talking? I have a dim recollection that it was related to Nathan by his mother in an effort to say 'don't worry, Peter will be fine' - thus convincing Nathan that his allowing it to happen wouldn't hurt his brother...

But maybe she was lying or guessing? I don't have the episode in front of me so my memory could be failing but I'm almost positive what was implied is that he has the healing power and will survive. After all, they already saw him come back after Claire pulled the glass from his skull.

FWIW, I thought the finale was excellent, as was the rest of the show. Am looking forward to season 2 (and would even be happy if both brother's survived :-)). Yup, that's about where I sit. :)

It's the Sun, it's a Murdoch Rag

[ed]

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

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[BluhDeBluh]

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?

[mmarlett]

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?

[MeanderingMind]

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.

Look for the grain of truth...

[brown-eyed slug]

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.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[dkf]

The sun is possible the worst of tabloid news.

No it isn't, not even close. Alas. :-(

Disappointing.

[Frosty Piss]

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

[SuperDre]

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...

Bitching about Lost

[Nymz]

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

[GreyPoopon]

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.

Re:Bitching about Lost

[rikkards]

A guy I work with did that exact thing. He found the first 6 episodes of Season 3 was tolerable when he watched them one right after the other but he could understand why anyone would be annoyed with it. Personally I find Lost more cereberal than Heroes almost like the latter panders towards Joe Sixpack.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[farrellj]

/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

What?

[EmperorKagato]

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

Re:What?

[Dunbal]

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...

Re:What?

[Opportunist]

Nah, it's more like Dr. House, but instead of guessing the disease of the week by looking at the symptoms they try to figure out what doc to blame for the malpractice of the week.

British humour. Don't try to understand it, it's like trying to figure out why vinager supposedly goes well with fries. Sure, you may try, but you'll make a funny face and everyone but you is gonna laugh about it, and you still won't get it.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you mention House, I just want to add that Hugh Laurie should totally be the next Doctor. Preferably doing his comically bad American accent and using a sonic crutch. Get Stephen Fry to be a companion. Or the Master!

Re:What?

[mink]

First of all, as any east coast American should know, you need malted vinegar for fries (regular will work, but malted is tastier) and some salt. Also you don't waste good vinegar on crappy fries like what comes from fast food joints. You need good well cooked hunks of potato, still slightly soft and capable of absorbing said liquid. Dont use too much, moderation is the key to good eats.

Best place IMO to get them is Ocean City boardwalk in Maryland.

Speaking on cooked potato products, I once was at a table next to some French tourists and they asked for mayonaise for their fries. I tried it and it was not bad (use spareingly).

I have never seen anyone laughing at people who try fries with vinegar. Maybe you need better friends.

Re:What?

[Opportunist]

Why not a black Doctor? I think it would add some (sorry for the pun, honestly) color.

But, sure, Laurie would be perfect. The hilarity alone, from doctor to Doctor.

Rubbish! What I want to know is...

[Octopus]

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

Austin...I'm...you...father

[Chas]

Austin: Really?

The Sun: No. Not really....

NOOOO

[Eudial]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO

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

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[crossmr]

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.

The Sun

[cubicle phobia]

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.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[apathy maybe]

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").

You can pry

[Anonymous Coward]

my replica sonic screwdriver from my cold dead hands, BBC

Nothing to see here, move along

[Simon Brooke]

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 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.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Volante3192]

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

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[19061969]

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

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

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong ! The BBC _does_ chase ratings so that it can justify a regressive tax like the licence fee - if not enough people watch the fee will have to go.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[British]

Sadly, you are right. The classic Doctor Who had almost no budget, but brilliant writing to make up for it(see: Genesis of the Daleks). the "new" Who has the opposite problem. A decent budget(CGI and such), but the writing is appallingly bad. The episodes are almost tailored to an American audience with lots of action, etc, but practically zero substance underneath. It didn't used to be like that. Makes me wonder what audiences thought of the introduction of an arch nemesis(the master) in the Pertwee era.

I miss the days of the typical DW episode where the Doctor and his companions get separated, and the Doctor saves the day by reversing the polarity. He ALWAYS reverses the polarity.

NUTS!!!!!

[hawks5999]

...oh, wait

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well with the reintroduction of the Timelords, Face of Boe stated and this new Harold Saxon character obviously being a timelord, possibly a rival (much like the Master back in the 60s), it is possible for them just to end with a scene on a new Gallifry, all happy and what not. Sure it is not in the style of Doctor Who, but it is quite possible. I mean it is not unheard of for production companies to take it the easy way out when they already have the masses hooked, Seinfield for example. Though I doubt the validity of it, maybe thats the timelord/whovian in me talking, it could be interpreted as an eye opener for all of us who tune into BBC3 every Saturday night, or Sunday afternoon for when the DVR rerun.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[TheRaven64]

The original show was quite a different format. Episodes were around 20 minutes long (plus a 'previously' segment of varying length) and were joined together into short arcs of two to six episodes, with four being the most common. Most of these were written, directed and produced by different people. It worked well until the '80s...

The weight of the show, on one pair of shoulders

[Opportunist]

The shows you mention all share a very important trait: Many main characters. It's easy for Patrick Steward to take a week off by writing him to some peace talk conference on a planet without skipping the week. Hey, it could be made into a plot device.

Not possible in Dr. Who. What's Dr. Who without Dr. Who? Dr. ... who?

Re:Hasn't started sucking? (Heroes SPOILERS within

[hal2814]

SPOILERS (You've been warned):

The Watchmen pulled it off much better. For starters, Ozzymandius wasn't some pawn and didn't trust his entire plan to someone with reservations about the crisis. There's no reason to even tell Nathan about the plot since Peter is the one who's going to explode. And then not only did the big event not even happen in Heroes, but it played out almost exactly how Peter dreamed it would play out earlier in the season! It was very anti-climatic.

I imagine Sylar is still alive because of the bloody manhole shot. That REALLY annoys me because Mr. Sulu's kid and his friend both know Sylar survives the sword stabbing Sulu's kid initially gives him. Sylar should've been hacked to bits while there was still time.

I'm still interested in following the show, but I was very let down at the finale.

Contract Renegotiations

[dunstan]

Hmm, call me cynical, but do we think that RTD's contract with the BBC may be up for renewal, and he's trying to scare them into upping his rate?

Re:Contract Renegotiations

[Dogtanian]

Hmm, call me cynical, but do we think that RTD's contract with the BBC may be up for renewal, and he's trying to scare them into upping his rate? Hmm, call me cynical, but The Sun has a track record for putting out stories like this based on half-truths, rumour and/or downright fabrication.

Could be true, could be bollocks, but as long as it gets some page views or shifts a few more papers, I doubt they give a toss. Looks like they succeeded.

Re:Contract Renegotiations

[Elliot_Lin]

Yeah, I think the last response BBC gave to The Sun went along the lines of 'What a load of trash thats not going to happen in our storylines. The BBC refuses to comment of future storylines'

Spin offs?

[ThirdPrize]

They could scrap Torchwood and all that stuff. Free up a bit of spare time.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Tony Hoyle]

That's not entirely true - when the license comes up for renewal do you think they'd get much sympathy if they'd spent the whole year producing quality german opera?

They have to appeal to their audience and produce things that are going to be popular.. it's just that they don't have to worry too much about day to day ratings as there are no advertisers to keep happy, so they can take more risks.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[God'sDuck]

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

Only if you pronounce what it's abbreviated from as sky'ens feekshun.

Re:Hasn't started sucking? (Heroes SPOILERS within

[jollyreaper]

The Sylar thing, that's the only thing that's really bugged me the entire time. It's like when Sylar is tied to the chair, don't bandy words with him, kill him immediately! And when he gets free of the chair and Peter comes in and saves you and Sylar gets knocked down, do something to cut his head off! Never assume the bad guy is dead until you have his head removed from his body, then burn it all just to be sure. I hate it when they have to resort to character mistakes to keep a baddie alive.

With regards to that manhole thing, Sylar could have done it himself or maybe something else came up and got him. Convention says he's still alive, though. (drat)

The best way I ever saw this handled was in the Buffy v. Dracula episode. She dusts him, everybody walks off, and then they do the typical "baddie comes back to life, muhahahah!" thing with him coalescing from the vapor. STAB! POOF! Buffy was watching. Then he does the vapor thing again. "I'm still here," she says. The vapor goes away. Class.

Torchwood strikes against the doctor!

[Scrameustache]

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. Maybe if they just worked on the good Doctor and stopped wasting their time on spin offs and stupid spin offs we wouldn't be in this mess?

Fan

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a big fan of Dr. Who early on, but after the horrible movie with Eric Roberts, just demonstrates how bad someone can screw up a beloved series. And then for the new series attempts, many of the episodes were just cheesy. A constant trying to revive the old look of the TARDUS was disappointing. I found no nostalgia in going back to older looking sets. Tom Baker(the best DR. Who) redesigned the set into more modern one. They should have kept with that trend.

Even though it was disappointing I will be sad to see it go.

Just hand the project off to someone else, someone that has a better vision, not a tired run down one.

Degrees of seperation

[ItsIllak]

                Rupert Murdoch
                  /       \
                 /         \
News International      Sky One-----COMPETITOR--------BBC
     /                     |                            |
    /                      |                            |
The Sun                 Various----LOWER RATINGS----Doctor Who

Do you see what's happening here?

Re:Degrees of seperation

[SQL Error]

Yes.

A newspaper got major details of a story wrong.

Newspapers get major details of every story wrong. See also: Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Re:Degrees of seperation

[khallow]

And they had strong incentive to get it wrong.

Rumours that may be from the BBC...

[jd]

...say that after falling IQ figures, the Sun is to be axed at the end of the silly season.

For those that don't know

[nicklott]

The Sun makes the National Enquirer look like Time Magazine.

"A source said" is always a euphemism for "I just made this up"

Re:The weight of the show, on one pair of shoulder

[TomHandy]

The answer to that can be seen in the episode "Love & Monsters"

Re:Doctor Who, Torchwood, Sarah Jane etc.

[Psykechan]

Russel T Davies has been involved in producing three simultaneous shows as well as behind the scenes work on Doctor Who Confidential and Totally Doctor Who. Sure there have been other simultaneous series run by the same creative teams; Star Trek and the Angel/Buffy/Firefly shows being examples but they suffered quality problems due to the team being stretched thin. Look at Buffy S6-7 and Angel S3-4 and tell me that quality wasn't waning even though they were still fine shows.

The Doctor Who shows have had continuous quality and the staff have paid the price for it. I'm not even going to say that this news is true, I mean it is from the Sun, but if it is then it won't be that surprising.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[dreethal]

Never trust "The Sun".

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[MightyMartian]

It means that in three or four years, they'll bring Dr. Who back again for another triumphant few seasons. I think this may be one of the cleverer marketing ploys I've seen. It's a pity that the folks at Universal hadn't had the brains to recognize the value in the adage "absense makes the heart grow fonder" when continually creating newer and ever more terrible Star Trek spin-offs. If they had left it at Deep Space 9 and let the whole thing fallow for a few years, we'd probably have a Star Trek series on the air right now.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[MightyMartian]

I dunno. The different Doctors were so... different, then I don't think the latest could be judged any better or any worse. I mean, I enjoy the new shows, think they're the best SciFi my TV has seen in over a decade, but I still think Tom Baker was the best Doctor.

Well now

[thanksforthecrabs]

That will free up another date night for about 5 million people. NOT!

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[MightyMartian]

You are aware, I hope, that a very large bulk of the SciFi on film and in books would probably be disqualified on these grounds. Even hard SciFi writers like Larry Niven have utilized telepathy on occasion, and that's a helluva lot more than just breaking a law or two. Hell, Star Trek had a guy who could read peoples minds, implant suggestions and knock 'em out cold with a "nerve" pinch.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Gilmoure]

Are you talking about the pr0n version?

TARDIS Slashdot Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

When is Slashdot going to get a dedicated Doctor Who icon like it has for some other SciFi series?

Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[Artifice_Eternity]

How did I know that the tabloid Sun story would be on Slashdot, while the more level-headed, better-sourced Guardian piece would not?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,209 2376,00.html

The BBC has insisted that the future of Doctor Who's executive producer, Russell T Davies, "has not yet been decided" in spite of reports today that he will quit the hit show after the next series.

A BBC drama spokeswoman said that Mr Davies has signed up to oversee this year's Doctor Who Christmas special and 2008's fourth series.

However, she added that his involvement with Doctor Who after that has not been confirmed.

"Discussions have not begun so we cannot say if Russell will be involved or not," she said.

A senior BBC Wales drama source told MediaGuardian.co.uk that Mr Davies may be preparing to leave the show.

"Russell has always said that he wouldn't be with the show forever and he has made no secret that the hours are quite exhausting," the insider said.

"But there isn't any way it would be axed even if he left. He loves the show and he does feel that maybe it would benefit from some new blood."

Today's Sun claimed that the show will be axed after the fourth series because of the decision by Mr Davies to quit as executive producer.

The Sun reported that Mr Davies and "senior staff have hatched a plot to hand in a group resignation in summer 2008 and that the show will end after series four".

It quoted a "source" who said that Mr Davies had become fed up over an exhausting workload of 16-hour days nine months a year.

Mr Davies has been the creative driving force behind the Doctor Who revival, which has been a resounding critical and ratings success, and his departure would be a blow for the BBC.

As executive producer he has taken on a "show runner" role, overseeing all creative aspects of the drama and in particular leading the team of Doctor Who writers, as well as scripting individual episodes himself.

The showrunner role is common on long running US TV drama and comedy series, but not often seen in the UK.

However, if Mr Davies does leave Doctor Who, the BBC will want to keep such a popular show going by bringing in a new executive producer to take over his creative responsibilities.

Re:Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[DavidTC]

Davies, in many ways, reminds me of the guy brought in last season on ST:Enterprise, Manny Cato. A guy who's a fan of the original show and understands what other fans actually want, as opposed to someone who thinks of it as a 'property' and tries to monetize the hell out of it until it's canceled.

Not attempting to appeal to the 'mainstream' may make shows slightly less popular in the short run, but, in the long run, you can either add shows the rapid fanbase likes, which will reap millions in rewards later, or you can add shows they don't like, which can utterly screw things up, like, again, Enterprise did for the first three seasons, which not only won't help but can harm the original property.

Re:Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[malsdavis]

Slashdot doesn't want to hear the realistic story published by a reputable newspaper, it wants to hear the alarmist, "anonymous source" based story published by a tabloid newspaper who's third page features a new topless lady everyday!

Next you'll be denying tomorrow's "exclusive" story in The Sun on how Tony Blair and George Bush are having a secret gay affair together!

Re:Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[The_Rook]

maybe we can get the beeb to hire manny coto to manage the series for a few years...

Re:Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[DavidTC]

Well, the problem there is that we have no idea if Manny Cato is a Doctor Who fan. ;)

Davies isn't running the show alone. Almost every sci-fi writer in England was a Doctor Who fan growing up, and considering the dearth of science fiction TV shows in England, they shouldn't run out of writers. Basically, as long as the BBC doesn't do something to 'mainstream' it, but it's worth noting that Doctor Who is such a random show it can, and has, been set on Earth in the present for a while with no harm done. A whole season of of the original Doctor Who basically was, where he was stranded on Earth and working for UNIT, although now they're certainly going to do those type plots over on Torchwood.

About the only way to break Doctor Who is to break the Doctor and the general sense of 'Isn't this cool?' that he brings to the table.

But, frankly, I think instead of wondering what could go wrong, it might be more useful to wait until something actually does and then complain. ;)

Re:Guardian: RTD may leave, but show NOT canceled

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll be denying tomorrow's "exclusive" story in The Sun on how Tony Blair and George Bush are having a secret gay affair together! wait - since then was that a secret affair? :)

Ebonics?

[haggie]

Anyone else read this subject title and think that the article was about ebonics?

Doctor, who you be axin' again?

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[hoojus]

Could have been if Janeway was hot!

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[plover]

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

I did read the text, thank you very much, and it read exactly like the "He resigned to pursue other opportunities" kind of lie that a corporation tells when they fire the CEO's ass.

I know that very few people walk away from a profitable enterprise. If the only problem is truly overwork and it's making metric butt-loads of money, you add staff to ease the pressure and you continue to make money. And if we're talking about a TV show not making money, it's probably due to low ratings.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Scrameustache]

"The BBC has given an official statement to FreemaAgyeman.com, calling the Sun's story "absolute rubbish"." Thanks for the hint: Direct link to "shame on the Sun".

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Ngarrang]

I like Doctor Who, always have. The fanboy in me wants to see it keep going, but I can understand the need to end a series if it is taking that much of your life. I would rather have a short, but good, series run. Star Trek's many series is proof that you can keep a good going too long.

Is he in education?

[slapout]

"nine months a year of 16-hour days"

That sound like what we usually hear from teachers.

What on Earth are you talking about?

[BancBoy]

Slashdot always has had a dedicated Docter Who icon.

Look at the top of the pa...oh wait...wrong timeline. Never mind.

D'oh

[Legion303]

"[...] UK tabloid [...]"

Well there's your problem.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so cute watching nerds try to stratify themselves.

Not a bad idea.

[leoc]

I appreciate everything Davies was trying to accomplish, but I think it is time for a new (or rather, "old") direction for the show. These self-contained 1 hour long doctor who episodes are okay, but they are too much like the X files and are just too formulaic at this point. Bring back the 1/2 hour cliffhanger format, the pseudo-shakespearean actors, cheap sets, and Douglas Adams-style scripts (RIP). And for the love of god, stop making every episode happen on earth!

Okay

[jav1231]

I'll bite. Whatcha gonna axe him!?

Oh, no!

[dokhebi]

Not again!

Well, at least it means David Tennant is available to attend Gallifrey One!

Just my $0.02 worth.

I like the current two-parter

[Tipa]

Even though the "alien blood hound family" thing seems a lot like the first season thing with those aliens who took over Downing Street, I still like seeing Martha having to take the lead in fighting off an alien invasion while also serving tea and scrubbing the floor.

Meanwhile, the Doctor learns to waltz!

That older possessed kid looks utterly creepy.

"Ex-sperm-inate!"

[Dogtanian]

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?). Pink Daleks? Someone came pretty close to that with the Gay Daleks.

Note: These episodes contain almost as many gay references as the new "Doctor Who" series. But not quite.

Title..

[dealmaster00]

Did anyone else read the title and think the article was about a doctor who was going to be axed...for a second time?

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[GrievousMistake]

So I'm wondering here, if I never watched doctor Who and wanted to check it out, where should I begin? I'm normally very adamant at starting at the very beginning, but I read something about episodes from the first seasons being lost? I'd want to start somewhere introductionary, do they do that at the start of every season, or every doctor or whatever? If I wanted a litmus test, which one would be the doctor Whoiest?

No more hero for you

[vonhammer]

Heroes is an unbelievable dissapointment. Some of the more egregious are:

• The multiple opportunities to kill Sylar, only to let him live.
• Sylar's ability to stop bullets just after they have been fired at him, but he's too slow to stop Hiro from running him through with a sword (despite seeing it coming).
• Hiro learning Sulu's koryu in a couple of hours.
• Peter's ability to stop himself from going critical in one episode, but not being able to do so in another.
• And, worst of all, letting Sylar escape unnoticed through a sewer (perhaps the cockroach dragged him in).

Sigh, I want to like this show, but I've been dissapointed time and again.
Lost's writing is a PhD graduate, Heroes' is a high school sophmore.

Re:No more hero for you

[jollyreaper]

Heroes is an unbelievable dissapointment. Some of the more egregious are: I tend to take these things as a whole. Most shows/movies suck so I end up picking them apart for all their flaws. The better the show, the easier it is to ignore the weaknesses. (the caveat to that is that the best shows also tend to have less weaknesses, part of the quality.)

* The multiple opportunities to kill Sylar, only to let him live. That's my biggest beef with all entertainment. How many times has Batman not killed the Joker? And he KNOWS that every time the Joker escapes, people die. So he is in effect an accomplice since he has the power to prevent the murders by killing the Joker. This isn't a problem unique to Heroes but it does bother me. Anyone remember Spike the pet vampire? Yeah, I love the character, but they should have killed him when they had the chance.

* Sylar's ability to stop bullets just after they have been fired at him, but he's too slow to stop Hiro from running him through with a sword (despite seeing it coming). Yup. There's such a thing as being surprised and freezing in a moment of terror but that's less believable when you've proven you can stop bullets. When you are dealing with an almost magically impervious enemy like Sylar, the only way to beat him is to saturate his defenses. I'm sure there's an upper limit to the amount of shit he can pay attention to at one time. If you had fifty people shooting at him, one bullet is bound to get through. I was hoping for Hiro to do some sort of weird Mitsurugi time travel thing on him, attacking from three sides at once. :)

* Hiro learning Sulu's koryu in a couple of hours. Hiro is a master of time, they could have spent two years in that room. *cough* retconn *cough* That is one of the problems with time travel in a story. If Skynet didn't whack Connor the first time, why didn't it just send more Terminators to the same point in the timeline? If Hero fucks up his first attempt at Sylar, why not jump back to the same point in time when he's still concentrating on freezing the original Hiro and attack him there? Why not gather up a team of badass shitkickers and timewarp them right on top of Slyar and watch him try to take them all out? I could never write a story with voluntary time travel in it because it opens up too many questions.

* Peter's ability to stop himself from going critical in one episode, but not being able to do so in another. It could have been explained better. Sometimes you have to sneeze, sometimes you can stop it. But for such an important plot event, there should have been a little more explanation as to why he couldn't control it. Even something as much as getting knocked unconscious would explain it, the process runs away without his conscious mind controlling it.

* And, worst of all, letting Sylar escape unnoticed through a sewer (perhaps the cockroach dragged him in). That sort of thing is, again, a weakness across many stories. It's right up there with the bad guy holding a gun to the love interest's head and the bad guy surrendering his weapon to save her life. Dude! You know the guy is a bastard, he's just going to shoot the both of you. Except that something will happen, she gets away, they both fight, the good guy smacks the baddie down, then refuses to kill him when the baddie is at his mercy, turns and walks away as the baddie pulls out a hold-out pistol or a throwing knife and then, when the baddie is poised to strike, the good guy whirls around and drills him between the eyes with his own weapon. UGH! Totally by the fucking numbers.

Re:No more hero for you

[sesshomaru]

I could never write a story with voluntary time travel in it because it opens up too many questions.

Well, to my mind, they handled this easily enough. Hiro is an incompetant time traveller (in fact, they handle it this way in Dr. Who as well.). He basically doesn't have much ability to control where and when he'll show up. His powers seem to fade in and out. Therefore, the tension is "What if I travel in time, my powers flake out and I can't travel again and I've died and turned to dust years before Sylar was ever even born." (See Hiro's current exodus on the show, he didn't intend to end up there by any means.)

I've also seen it controlled in other stories like the Gargoyles cartoon and The Man Who Murdered Mohammed that you can't alter actual, known historical facts. If Amelia Eirhart disappears in year X and remains missing for Y number of years. You can't go back in time and bring her back to a ticker tape parade less than Y years and mess up all the history books. You could, however, bring her forward in time to Y+1 and have your tickertape parade then.

Oh, and the Terminator films? Tough to say. History might be invulnerable to changes, in which case the stories lack drama except for the historical facts we don't know. Like, if Connor had a girlfriend, well, she might be killed because we know nothing about her. We know that if Connor was actually killed then what has happened is a new parallel timeline was created so we don't really have to worry if they exist simultaneously. If the one timeline overwrites the other one, then we have a paradox, a result without a cause.

So, who's up for a game of Timemaster, I'll GM...

Re:No more hero for you

[Aexia]

Hiro learning Sulu's koryu in a couple of hours.

It had been stated in an earlier episode that Hiro took lessons as a child. His training with his dad wasn't about learning swordplay but about getting him into the mindset to actually kill Sylar.

Re:No more hero for you

[osu-neko]

Sylar's ability to stop bullets just after they have been fired at him, but he's too slow to stop Hiro from running him through with a sword (despite seeing it coming).

He's clearly not too slow for that. You're not thinking it through. Guess who can see the future? Guess who knows he's going to live? Any guesses what might happen if he doesn't let Hiro stab him?

Hiro learning Sulu's koryu in a couple of hours.

Hiro already clearly knows quite a bit about swordplay before the start. The only thing Hiro really needs to learn in that time is the one thing Kaito is trying to teach him: strength. The strength to kill. The strength to cut out his own heart, if he needs to. Hiro gets it. He even says it. How did you miss it?

Peter's ability to stop himself from going critical in one episode, but not being able to do so in another.

Peter flying in one episode, but not being able to do so in another. Peter constantly see-sawing back in forth between moments of incredible displays of power and moments of complete inability to do anything at all. You act like this was somehow inconsistent, but it's consistent with Peter's character and abilities and the difficulties he's always had with them from the start.

My biggest complaint about the show is the fans who don't pay attention, then blame their inability to understand what just happened on the writers.

Re:No more hero for you

[vonhammer]

He's clearly not too slow for that. You're not thinking it through. Guess who can see the future? Guess who knows he's going to live? Any guesses what might happen if he doesn't let Hiro stab him?

Whoa there hoss. I don't recall any images showing Sylar living past his date with the steel blade. Nor is there any reason to believe that Sylar accepts this as his fate. Sylar acts in his own interest and skoffs at the idea of Hiro killing him. So, although your explanation sounds good, I don't think that is what the writers intended. Also, you didn't explain the multiple opportunites to kill Sylar only to leave the boogie-man alive.

My biggest complaint about the show is the fans who don't pay attention, then blame their inability to understand what just happened on the writers.

I didn't claim not to understand, only to be dissapointed. We can disagree on whether there are excuses or explanations for some of the plot developments, but my overall point was the sophmoric writing when compared to Lost. If you love the show, then that's fine - I respect your opinion, I just have given up on it after one season. FYI, I feel the same way about Lost that you do about Heroes.

Re:No more hero for you

[ceejayoz]

Hiro is an incompetant time traveller (in fact, they handle it this way in Dr. Who as well.).

He's not incompetent. He's in an outdated TARDIS model with things breaking down (for example, it's stuck as a police box) without a normal crew.

Re:No more hero for you

[jollyreaper]

Well, to my mind, they handled this easily enough. Hiro is an incompetant time traveller (in fact, they handle it this way in Dr. Who as well.). He basically doesn't have much ability to control where and when he'll show up. His powers seem to fade in and out. Therefore, the tension is "What if I travel in time, my powers flake out and I can't travel again and I've died and turned to dust years before Sylar was ever even born."

Well, that's just it, they aren't incompetent time travelers, they're Star Trek transporters: their abilities work just as well as the script demands them to. Transporters started out as a cool storytelling device to get people here and there without expensive FX shots of landing ships and shuttles. However, it also presented a problem. Why not just beam out of any trouble spot? So now you have to invent reasons for it not to work. And then when talentless writers start basing entire stories around transporter malfunctions...

So, that's the problem with Who and Hiro. We see the Doctor can end up in unexpected places due to uncontrolled time travel. However, we also see him able to drop his companions off within a day of their departure time. Hiro can be flung to the future or across the planet by his power and yet he's also able to pick pinpoint times to return such as rescuing Ando from Sylar.

Why does the transporter suck from a storytelling perspective? Because it just highlights the contrived nature of the story. Imagine telling a story with a gunfighter character whose gun operates on transporter principles. In one adventure he manages to shoot down a helicopter by making a three mile shot and drilling the pilot through the skull and then the following week he misses a shot at a kidnapper because the story demands that the victim be kidnapped so a bigger confrontation can take place later. Well, maybe you could have the victim kidnapped when the gunman isn't around? No, the writers insist he has to feel the failure of not preventing the kidnapping. Let's say they established that this gun is powerful enough to breach the front armor of a main battle tank. Then they have a kidnapper survive a shot to the chest because he has a bullet-proof vest. WTF?

The other problem you have with the time travel that's similar to transporters is the idea of scope. Transporters would be as fundamentally revolutionary to Federation society as electricity is in ours. About the only non-transport use they show is with replicators. But think of it, doctors could beam tumors out of people. You could run a virus filter on the matter stream and remove a disease from the person being transported. There would be no need for cars on Earth, people would just beam where they need to be. And since aging can be reversed in the transporter (as established in the show), we now have immortality. But the writers didn't want to go any of those places so the transporter remains a cheap way to get to a planet. I can understand their reasoning but it makes for a big plot hole in the show.

With Hiro's power, he could travel back to the time of an important fight ten times and have ten of him attacking an important enemy. He could take a near-fatal blow in the fight, then teleport out and spend eight months in recovery, then teleport back in as good as new. Given that he's developed a skill for researching timelines and putting things together, he could go back a lot further in a bad guy's past and possibly be the influence that puts him on a path other than evil.

I think that sort of thing is difficult from a storytelling perspective because it makes the process seem artificial. You see this in comic books especially where one issue you have the main character holding his own against godlike entities and the next week he's having trouble taking down a nonsuperpower bad guy in leotards. About the only good explanation for this sort of thing I've ever seen is in Hellsing where Alucard is a vampire bound to human service, immensely powerful. He is only allowed to unlock ju

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Glyphstream]

It was the only good Star Trek. FOR ME TO POOP ON! No, that's not true either. Half of Enterprise was pretty bad too.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

And Star Trek: Voyager is proof you can keep a really really bad thing going too long (ie at all).

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[MeanderingMind]

There are several options.

1) The very beginning: This has the advantage that you get to see the series evolve. To my knowledge, the lost episodes are largely 2nd and 3rd doctor. There's probably a list somewhere you can look it up.

The special effects are circa the era the show aired in. If you aren't fond of the age old effects, this might not be the start for you.

2) Third Doctor onward: The jump between the second and third doctors was large enough that one could viably start here without needing the previous backstory. By this point, the series had established most of its tenants.

3) Fourth Doctor onward: Not as good a spot as the others, but Tom Baker was the most popular doctor, had the longest run, and had a couple episodes written by Douglas Adams.

4) Ninth Doctor onward: Skip the old series entirely, go to the new series. You gain the benefit that you'll quickly be up to speed with other people starting here, but you'll probably feel inadaquate when some diehard who watched the series as it aired starts rambling about the other doctors.

Why do I have to fill in a subject?

[bradavon]

The show delivery needs new blood. Series 3 while not rubbish should be much better, it's a definite step down from series 1 and 2. It feels like painting by numbers.

It still wish as good as the NEW Series is that it connected better with the Classic series.

Re:Why do I have to fill in a subject?

[bradavon]

Oops that should be really not delivery.

Torchwood

[Roger W Moore]

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."

If he works 16 hours a day for 9 months on Doctor Who then exactly how much time does he spend on Torchwood? Sounds dodgy to me - I'll believe it when I hear it from the beeb.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Seumas]

Surely the BBC or some estate owns the rights to Doctor Who? Surely they could just find someone qualified to continue the series in a respectable and similar taste as the show has always been done? Why does it have to come to an end just because Davies is ready to split?

Doctor Who has been around since about the time my mom was in first grade. There have been at least as many seasons of Doctor Who as years I have been alive. I always thought Doctor Who might be the one consistent show I can enjoy for, more or less, my entire life. It is a truly unique science-fiction show. Serious, but not hard core. Deep, but enjoyable by someone less familiar with Doctor Who.

I hope it comes back again, but by the time they decide to do some more seasons, maybe the world will have moved on. I hope not. And it's sad that it only came back for four measly seasons. Four?! Come on. How do you get burned out after four seasons? And why not take a hiatus to work on other projects? I really don't think you spend 365 16-hour days a year to do thirteen episodes.

Oh well. I guess I'll have to head off to bit torrent and download as many of the old seasons as I can get my hands on. Sadly, much of the old Doctor Who is completely missing - especially the stuff from the early 1960s.

Since they mention that they want the show to end on a high note, I presume that means The Doctor will at least reunite with Rose.

Just shoot the goddarn lot of em down

[sqldr]

I lost interest with Battlestar Galactica after realising none of the people on the show had a sense of humour - or a personality, in fact. A mental disorder, yes, but no personality. Can you really imagine having to spend the rest of your life on a starship with those miserable fuckers?

I'm supporting the cylons.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Glyphstream]

All the random pop culture getting thrown around didn't help? David Tenant's doctor throws around at least twice as much, and I think he's a lot better than Eccleston because of it (and the slight insanity).

Phew!

[A_Non_Moose]

Considering the Foxtard-like calls we US'ians have to put up with (cancelling Drive? WTF, someone at Fux have
it in for NF? And Dancing w/Stars knocking Boston Legal out of its slot and other assorted stupidities.

Bovine excrement mentioned earlier was right on the money as even I went: (Panic!)..but 'the Sun' isn't know
for, well, things called "facts"...prolly bull...(click /. link and reads).

Didn't we go through a similar "Oh noes!" even though Eccelston (sp?) said he'd do one season only, so as not
to get "Tom Baker'ed?"

On behalf of Dr. Who fans I think it is best said like this:
(Dalek Voice) You will not cancel the show! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! (/dv)

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

MeanderingMind:

Excellent suggestions on your part... totally! Could not have stated it better myself, or offered a better order to watch them in (all great).

Either way you suggest (all great on your end), the person you are replying to is in for a treat!

(YOU know it, & I know it... heck, any fan of this series, knows it!)

Congrats to the UK on this series (longest running of all time in the Sci-Fi genre afaik, with excellent long-term design (due to the doctor being 'regenerateable', adding to its longevity potential by using diff. actors over time as they age OR move on to other roles (as Christopher Eccleston has done recently)), it rivals the original series "STAR TREK" imo, & in some ways, even exceeds it!

APK

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[chartreuse]

It's a pity that the folks at Universal hadn't had the brains to recognize the value in the adage "absense makes the heart grow fonder" when continually creating newer and ever more terrible Star Trek spin-offs. If they had left it at Deep Space 9 and let the whole thing fallow for a few years, we'd probably have a Star Trek series on the air right now. Whether they had the brains or not, they'd've had their asses sued because Star Trek's owned by Paramount (who are quite litigious about things).

Too many balls in the air...

[Chordonblue]

I knew this was coming. Russell Davies is directly or indirectly responsible for Doctor Who, Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, and god knows how many events. It's a terrific show and if Davies thinks he can only handle Torchwood then he should give over control of Dr. Who to those competent enough to do so. Dr. Who is a terrific show and should be good for many, MANY more seasons...

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

No you aren't.

There's a group of sci-fi nerds (starting with a bunch of writers I think) who wanted to denigrate anything they didn't consider "proper" science fiction. They decided that proper science fiction must be referred to as SF (or included in an umbrella term "speculative fiction").

They then have been trying to tell people that poor quality science fiction must be called "sci-fi" and pronounced "skiffy".

These are incredibly boring people that you do not, under any circumstances, want to be trapped next to at a cocktail party.

Anytime you hear someone actually say the word as "skiffy" you would do well to hit them over the head while their backs were turned, and run as fast as possible in the opposite direction (just in case their retardedness is catching).

Suck'n beans

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because Dr. Who sucks beans...

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Adamantyr]

I'd be sad to see the new series end, but I'd rather it end than go on with a new producer who doesn't do as good of a job.

And yes, I want to see the Doctor re-united with Rose too. I was gutted by the end of the 2nd series... I was thinking myself the best way for the Doctor to re-unite with her would be to meet a girl who is, to his total shock, his daughter by Rose Which means at some point in the future they are re-united... Guess I'm a hopeless romantic.

We take news from The Scum seriously?

[Monsterdog]

I mean, the Scum is mainly notable for the page three titty shots and the complete sub-Enquirer (hell, sub-Weekly World News!) level of its reporting. RTD has always indicated that he'll leave sometime between the end of series four and the end of series six, depending on his mood at the time you ask him. He wants to do other things. It's entirely possible he'll step down after series four to concentrate a bit more on Torchwood and the Sarah Jane Adventures; he's said several times he wishes he'd been more involved with Torchwood.

Re:Hasn't started sucking? (Heroes SPOILERS within

[osu-neko]

Convention says he's still alive, though. (drat)

Of course. They're being true to at least one good comic book convention. Villains get defeated, but rarely if ever do they get killed. Batman defeats the Joker many, many times...

Peter explicitly says why he can't!

[Aexia]

"I took his power Nathan. I can't control it. I can't do anything."

Peter couldn't fly because he was too busy trying not to blow up.

Why's it a bad thing if it's true?

[mbourgon]

Let's see, what have we gotten out of this latest (re)incarnation of the Doctor?

• 3 series of Doctor Who (with at least another one to come)
  
• 1 series of Torchwood (with at least another one to come)
  
• The Sarah Jane Adventures (series to come)
  

Honestly, I'd rather see it take a 5 year break and it come back GOOD, rather than watching it die a painful death and then having to wait almost 20 years for another.

If you're that tied to it, get a subscription to the Big Finish Productions audio shows - there's been over 90 "episodes" so far, with several dozen spinoffs including "Dalek Empire", "Gallifrey", "Sarah Jane Smith", "Cybermen" and "UNIT". Original cast (4 Doctors and ALL their sidekicks save one), original writers, original scores, new sidekicks, new villians, full sound effects, etc, etc.

Highly highly recommended.

A new creative director

[Burrfoot]

I wonder of Josh Wheedon is available. I wouldn't mind a ride on the Serenity Tardis.

Re:A new creative director

[neminem]

Oh, god. You just about gave me a geek-gasm there. The only two series I've ever fanboy'd out over (well, at least since I got over the Ninja Turtles, about the time I turned 7), coming together? I know it'll never happen, but dang, it'd be amazing.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Er... the BBC isn't a commercial network. It's not in the business of "making money." Although, for what it's worth, the show is a highly profitable venture for the BBC's dedicated commercial wing, and it does gangbusters in the ratings. It's up there as one of the highest-rated non-soap operas on UK television and has only dipped out of the top 20 rated programs of the week once since its return in 2005.

And it's sort of a Russell Davies thing. He's got a notoriously short attention span, even in the world of British television, which is a lot more used to limited-run series than the US market. And leaving a show to "pursue other opportunities" is hardly unheard of it, even in the US: "Seinfeld" ended under similar circumstances, even considering that it was still immensely popular. "M.A.S.H." did likewise, as did "Friends" and "Cheers."

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

>I was thinking myself the best way for the Doctor to re-unite with her would be to meet a girl who is, to his total shock, his daughter by Rose Which means at some point in the future they are re-united...

Christ Jesus, I hope not; that's the most retarded bullocks I've heard in my entire life! I'd rather see the series converted into a gene autrey style western musical than to see what you propose!

Bring on Steven Moffatt

[Frobisher]

There's plenty of other sources of creative juices who could take Who on for many many years to come. There's no way the BBC is going to give up on such a cash-cow so readily. Bring on the talents of Steven Moffatt, Gareth Roberts, Paul Cornell, and all the others.

I'm not worried. The Sun is about as reliable as the TARDIS.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[AgentSmith]

This just in . . .Netcraft confirms that Doctor Who is . . .

In Soviet North Korea only old Doctor Who confirms you!

Aw hell! The Sun?
Why not put this in the National Enquirer right
next to:

1. Nostradamus prediction for 2008! Small dog wins Republican Primary.
2. Bat Child found in Afghanistan as Taliban insurgent!
3. Paris Hilton found to be born from C.H.U.D. Turnips!
4. Transsexual Nazi Eskimos march for Baby Seal liberation!
5. American Idol found to emit space waves at TV Audience.

Bloody Liberal Rubbish!

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

SF? Is that supposed to be science fiction or speculative fiction? Could be either, I guess. Good thing we use clear abbreviations.

Can we please start an anime vs. japanimation thread now? That'd be swell.

Shuuuuut uuuup

[Anonymous Coward]

Errrr no, feckmunch, Voyager totally retireived Star Trek after the Babylon5 wannabe DS9, and went right back to the original series roots with all the advancements of TNG. It was, by far and away, the most superior yet.

Burned out?

[Xeth]

Sorry, but this has always bothered me about British TV; they have way fewer episodes per year. Like, half as many as a typical US Show. Blackadder had fewer (regular) episodes over its entire run than there are in a single year of DS9. Doctor Who does 13 episodes per series, which is the most I've seen in British TV.

Cue the "But U.S. TV sucks..." people. And yes, some of them do suck (just like some British shows, *cough*Torchwood*cough*), but there are and have been a number of quality programs that produce about twice as many episodes per year. So why do these people burn out so quickly?

The first go around was long.

[Dieppe]

Look, Dr. Who is the longest running SciFi show (even the Next Generation Series) for a reason. From 1963 through 1989 they kept churning out Doctor Who episodes. They changed Doctors, companions, villains, and even TARDISes... they've also changed writers, producers, directors, staff, and what have you.

Could they not just turn the reins over to the next group of people willing to take it on? It seems such a shame to revive a show, make it awesome and well loved (in the UK anyway), and then kill it off after 4 piddly years? Stupid Stupid Stupid. As long as they can still sell DVDs in the US they shouldn't stop.

I don't believe in this "stopping before we get burnt out crap", just find people to continue it. That's how it's worked in the past (to some degress of success admittedly).

Still.

No problem at all...

[Plekto]

Consider for a moment at the plots they need to finish for one:

Rani is still out there. She was turned into a tree, IIRC, but she'll probably be back.

Romana is as well. It was never known what happened to her, but according to the books, she was the head of the Timelords during the war with the Daleks. If you want to know where his real love interest is... she's it. She'll guaranteed be back.

Of course, there is The Master - He's still alive. Can't possibly not be alive.

And lastly, the 12.5th version of himself, the Valleyard.(evil Doctor who goes amok and breaks the rule against attempting to "re-do" time among other things. Tom Baker himself has inted at a possible comeback for this role(!) - And he looks eerily like the actor who originally played him, byw)

You can't do this all in one season. They've hinted at The Master as a possibility and of course, Evil Doctor(tm) is canon - and will happen.

But there's of course more. Unresolved issues:(btw, Rose is gone - the actress herself is doing other things now)

The Daleks are still alive - well, one of them is... Obvious lead-in into a future episode.
The Voidship is another biggie - it has all the markings of a timelord design - probably a method to escape the war. This means potentially dozens of old people could still be out there.
And of course, there are dozens of old enemies that need to be revisited. Cybermen in his own universe are still creeping around in the periphery, for instance. Plus, it looks like he re-created his dog again - which is cool, really - it's not bad for him to do his own thing for a while, either.

What Dr. Who needs to do is make a clean break and get away from "Present-Day-Earth". For instance, the best part of the 5th Doctor was that almost none of it took palce on Earth - it was all future Earth or some outpost or station or alien planet. I thought with the episode where he showed her New Earth, they would take off and do non-present day Earth(tm) crap.

Visit ancient Rome. Visit Atlantis again. Get stuck in some alien planet again. Visit any number of the old famous haunts from the past again - surely there is mileage in that. Or do another "hits the fan" arc like the "Key of Time" or "trials of a Timelord"

This series has tons of life in it - so don't worry too much.

Re:Doctor Who, Torchwood, Sarah Jane etc.

[Glyphstream]

Seasons 6 and 7 of Buffy were just kind of tacked on because it ended on WB and the now defunct UPN decided to pick it up and keep it going. However, I saw no decline in quality for Angel. I thought seasons 3 and 4 were improvements over the first two.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Jerry Smith]

Name one person watching sci-fi, and pronouncing it like 'skiffy'. Just one. I NEVER heard anyone pronouncing it like 'skiffy'.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of the whinging old fogies you cite. Gather around the fire, younglings, and listen to to the old greybeard. (cough) (I... I haven't long to live!) (dramatic phlegmy cough) (But perhaps you can fulfill your quest and make his old man happy before he dies!)

A little history puts this in perspective. The term 'sci-fi" was created by Forrest J. Ackerson, a man who loves puns, science fiction, and lurid monster movies. He analogized 'hi-fi' to create the term 'sci-fi' and pronounced it 'sigh-fye". This is the correct pronunciation. The verbal usage was bastardized by kids having no ear for language but who thought they'd look cool flinging the term around. And botched it.

The original intent for the term was to characterize the sort of 50's movies with monsters and pie plate saucers; Forry didn't really mean to lump in the serious works of Ray Bradbury and Bob Heinlein, or Arthur Clarke. Sci-fi, then and now, fundamentally means cheap tacky awful science fiction done with poor or no taste. The kind treated with appropriate respect by MST3K. Too bad there isn't an equivalent for the steaming mounds of badly-done fantasy we're overwhelmed with today, too. The kind that falls in the category of 'Sword of the DragonWitch Hemorrhoid-Cure Quest', et al. Now that I think of it, well, there IS 'slash fiction', but that's a horse of a different gender-preference. But I digress.

Harlan Ellison tried to interject the term 'speculative fiction', but as a term it was sufficiently ambiguous as to include mystery novels, it was not all that successful. And Harlan being Harlan, perhaps this was a good thing.

My authority on this? I've been in the field for a goodly long time. But you can look the history up for yourself, too. Don't take my word for it.

As for what Russell has done to Doctor Who, he's certainly modernized it. Not that modernization is a good thing. In my opinion, he's made it flashy and colorful and a bit glib, but thrown away too much of what was good. It's like what Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson did to the later James Bond movies, so much of the early excellence replaced by flashy mindless spectacle and pretentious shallow posturing. Analogous to what those idiots Berman and Braga did to Star Trek. Yes, I AM cranky. Yes, I haven't pooped since 1963. Now go away, you little brats, I need to go fondle my pulp magazine collection.

Not newsworthy ...

[Mr. Lwanga]

But the fact that Billie Piper is single again is at the top of my list.

Re:Not newsworthy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, she's a sweetie!

(My fav companion of the doctor thru the entire series, to date/currently, in fact - she's definitely got that cutie-type appeal, great aura of 'alive' around her, and she's GREAT @ displays of emotion/passion as an actress too).

Agreed, 110%

APK

Doctor Whomosexual ?

[Magickcat]

The homosexual agenda thing was starting to wear thin with me anyhow thanks to Russell T. Davies' direction. Sexualising to any sexual orientation shows a sheer lack of sophistication not to mention taste. The class shift in casting has made it suffer too - those Shaksperian actors with their good diction really played the stories well but they're all gone now.

It's also starting to suffer from the more apparent problems that Torchwood suffers from - the stories are pedestrian, and too often rely on the boring old Earth. Much like when the Jon Pertwee Doctor was stuck with the Brigadier and UNIT driving around in that boring old car, giving every monster he came across a karate chop. Of course that was because it was cheaper to make.

It's about time a writer was brave enough to really address the issues of ancient Galifrey and the Doctor's original identity beyond using bad poetry and cryptic comments that never resolve. It would also be nice to finally see a group of Timelords using a TARDIS as it was actually intended to be used too. We know that the Doctor rejected Timelord society - but we've never really seen that society sufficiently. I also think that the Dalek destuction of the Timelords is just plain silly.

Re:The weight of the show, on one pair of shoulder

[Domstersch]

Indeed. And the idea was so successful they've decided to do another Doctor-lite ("I can't believe it's not The Doctor") episode this season: "Blink" - next week's episode.

The reason why

[Anonymous Coward]

Several reliable industry watchers in London believe that Russell T. Davies, the producer of the current Doctor Who series, has learned that his script for the opening episode of season 3, where the Doctor (David Tennant) takes on a young male assistant and wears a lighter, pastel colored costume with tighter pants, was deemed unacceptable by the head of BBC1. It is rumored that Davies is leaving the series for good, and that that he is working on an alternate project with the former Larry Wachowski, part of the writing team of the hit Matrix films. The planned title of the movie script is not yet known, but rumors are that the story will be about Roman gladiators and may possibly feature a small role for Elizabeth Taylor as well as Hugo Weaving.

It's Not The End

[wolverine1999]

It isn't the end, a new producer will be found..

Even if it were to be cancelled, it won't be the end as happened before.

Doctor Who always finds a way back, be it fan fiction, official audios, official novels, etc....

always

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[IvanTheQuiteNasty]

Anything that crappy had to have a heart in it... ... or two!

Seems like a good time...

[jesuscash]

For Neil Gaiman to step in and add his creative genius.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[mink]

There are some important IMO stores from the first two doctors that I think should be seen to get some backstory ideas.

The first story with the first doctor.

The first Dalek story (if not every one you can get your hands on).

The story with the Master that leads into the third Doctor.

The Yeti Story.

The Cybermen stories (I like seeing how they evolved).

Bah. Find all you can by hook or by crook and watch them. Even the reconstructions where the video is lost or so bad they had to reduce it to stills with an audio track. Some really good stories (like the HUGE Dalek masterplan arc) were lost or completely lost except for a little footage and the audio tracks.

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[mink]

Old series episodes tried to have some science and educatiuon in them (many did even if not intentionally).

Re:Can you keep a good Time Lord down?

[mink]

Not the exact lines, but close.

Marge: We got the popcorn! Did you get "Waiting to Exhale"?
Homer: They put us on the "Waiting to Exhale" waiting list, but they said "don't hold your breath".
Lisa: Did you get Emma?
Marge: What did you get?
Homer: Something very close, exactly along those lines. A Dr. Who Sci-Fi series!
Marge & Lisa: Hmmmm...
Bart: So prepare yourself for the bloody mayhem and unholy carnage of Dr. Who Series 5!
Homer: With Sontarins, I bet!

A DVD is put into a player.

EPISODE 1 "Paint your T.A.R.D.I.S."

The doctor steps out of the T.A.R.D.I.S. and a man in black is waiting there (The Master ala Ainley, or Delgado).

The Master: That's a pretty sorry looking T.A.R.D.I.S. you have there, my dear Doctor.
The Doctor: I suppose it could use a coat of paint.
The Master: Well, what are we waiting for!

They proceed to sing about painting the T.A.R.D.I.S., which is repeated by a
the Doctors companions, much to the horror of Homer and Bart.

Homer: Agh! They're singing! They're singing, Marge! Why aren't they killing each other?
Bart: Yeah, his tissue compressor is right there.
Homer: Wait, wait, wait: here comes a Dalek. Thank God. They are always evil and violent.

Dalek: WHAT IS ALL THIS THEN!
The Master: We are just painting this T.A.R.D.I.S. Do you have a problem with that?
Dalek: AS A MATTER OF FACT I DO! YOU MISSED A SPOT! YOU MISSED A SPOT! REPAINT! REPAINT! REPAINT!
The Master: Well, grab a brush and join in then!

The Dalek breaks into song on it's own, saying it will use oil based paint, because the wood is pine (Ponderosa pine, sing the companions).