Over Christmas, while many of us were revelling in (else being 
extremely critical of) the bumper helping of WHO related broadcasts, a friend of mine who’d probably be quite happy to have his identity exposed, but I won’t just in case, was approached by his two young daughters, both avid fans of the show, proclaiming ‘Dad there’s too much Dr. Who.’
extremely critical of) the bumper helping of WHO related broadcasts, a friend of mine who’d probably be quite happy to have his identity exposed, but I won’t just in case, was approached by his two young daughters, both avid fans of the show, proclaiming ‘Dad there’s too much Dr. Who.’One can sympathise with this, especially since at the time their father was merrily watching the Children in Need WHO concert special, while mum and the grandparents got on with eating Christmas dinner. If you’re reading this, you’re probably an ‘Above & Beyond’ level devotee with a diary stuffed full of upcoming WHO events, but didn’t you feel overworked keeping up with the Christmas Day Special, the BBC 7 McGann adventure, Sarah Jane & triple Torchwood? Even if you did catch the whole lot, can you honestly say that they all did a good job of furthering public interest in the children’s own show that way too many adults adore?
Yes- I said the public’s interest. After all, as fans we’ll watch anything faintly WHO related, even if that means sitting through David Tennant on The Friday Night Project, an experience about as entertaining as wiping your arse with steel wool. But when kids are getting WHO fatigue- and admittedly it was only two of the blighters, but still- shouldn’t this be seen as a worrying portent?
Obviously television has changed a great deal since the days of the programme most of us grew up on. WHO lasted nearly thirty years not because it was event TV with a publicity blitz for
every new story, but because it offered a regular fix of the unknown and bizarre-paradoxically it was traditional and comforting even while its appeal lay in being unlike anything else around. There’s no doubt that TV today is far more commercially driven despite the BBC’s remit to provide a broad range of shows rather than chase profits, so when WHO returned in 2005 it broke big with high-profile features in even the least likely of publications and a stack of merchandise, much of which became either useless or far more collectible once Christopher Eccleston quit a few minutes later.
In short, WHO was demanding much more than the contents of our wallets- it was staking a claim on the UK’s attention. Clearly the series needed this level of visibility to begin with, but can the public be expected to keep the attitude of ‘Ooh, I’ll have a look at that show’ for very long before thinking, ‘Christ- it’s that bloody thing again’ ? A Radio Times cover announcing the show’s return and the mid-season unveiling of the iconic monster- fair do’s. Another couple for a WorldCup/Season finale tie-in… plus a pseudo one for Billie Piper’s departure…and Torchwood? Would you be too surprised if a backlash kicks in? As a glossy, effects heavy series you can’t blame the BBC for sticking an awful lot of fanfare behind the show- this isn’t like a long-running soap whose re-usable sets make it relatively cheap to produce and which has a duty to remain broadly similar from week-to-week, year-to-year.
Also, let’s not ignore the fact that the heavy coverage in both high and low-brow press is down to what readers are responding to rather than some nefarious plan by the show’s producers. But still, can’t this level of hysteria only be detrimental in the long-term? How many ‘must see’ shows have crashed spectacularly after a couple of spins when they’re no longer this year’s model? Moonlighting and Twin Peaks come to mind, and more recently Lost seems to have plummeted from mainstream hit to minority cult in the space of one season and while that may largely be due to its now premiering on Sky, the general public don’t seem terribly bothered, nicely illustrating their fickleness as they settle down to Ugly Betty for at least a couple of weeks.
With WHO, the arrival of two spin-off shows (so far) and three ‘making of’ strands may help to keep the core series in the public eye, but won’t these just hasten the speed with which it goes from much-loved gem to ubiquitous irritant? To be fair the broad audience of Torchwood probably won’t be setting their Sky+ boxes for Totally Doctor Who or The Sarah Jane Adventures, but it all contributes to the general amount of WHO hanging about in everyone’s peripheral vision, draining one’s patience rather like the Macarena or the Spice Girls. I don’t think anyone can seriously imagine the new WHO lasting uninterrupted until 2031 regardless of how many magazine covers and spin-off series it produces, but might not a vast scaling down be in order before some hypothetical CGI revival of The A-Team starts to look more appealing?
Many have wondered if the show’s future might involve switching from annual, three month series to a couple of specials a year, possibly at Christmas and Easter. Then wouldn’t these few adventures once again have to be much publicised events in order to make them worth the BBC’s time and money, as well as always telling ‘end of the universe’ level adventures if they’re going to be sufficiently epic to warrant a stand alone special. Actually that may not be true; with BBC3’s policy of repeating programmes endlessly, it might be possible to slowly build up a library of one-off stories which premier quietly before going on to pick up a gradual audience in some form of syndication. Whoever’s playing the Doctor at this point may well be happy to continue for many years if the low production rate left them free to pursue other work the rest of the time.
This approach might result in less extravagant sets or prosthetics and zero story arcs, but may see an upturn in CGI with effects boffins having more time to execute a smaller number of shots(assuming the BBC haven’t brought back The Tripods by then) and perhaps try out a greater range of design styles. The truth is that so long as WHO is making a stack of cash in merchandising and overseas sales, the BBC will want to keep it going and probably in some form beyond a bunch of spin-off books and officially licensed audios. The problem will be in maintaining WHO’s reputation with the general public as a show that they may want to check out to see what’s going on this week, rather than making it all seem about as appealing as chocolate does… once you’ve un-wrapped two drums of Quality Street, a tray of After Eight mints and a box of cherry liqueurs on Christmas morning that is.
Written by Phil Richards
Yes- I said the public’s interest. After all, as fans we’ll watch anything faintly WHO related, even if that means sitting through David Tennant on The Friday Night Project, an experience about as entertaining as wiping your arse with steel wool. But when kids are getting WHO fatigue- and admittedly it was only two of the blighters, but still- shouldn’t this be seen as a worrying portent?Obviously television has changed a great deal since the days of the programme most of us grew up on. WHO lasted nearly thirty years not because it was event TV with a publicity blitz for
every new story, but because it offered a regular fix of the unknown and bizarre-paradoxically it was traditional and comforting even while its appeal lay in being unlike anything else around. There’s no doubt that TV today is far more commercially driven despite the BBC’s remit to provide a broad range of shows rather than chase profits, so when WHO returned in 2005 it broke big with high-profile features in even the least likely of publications and a stack of merchandise, much of which became either useless or far more collectible once Christopher Eccleston quit a few minutes later.
In short, WHO was demanding much more than the contents of our wallets- it was staking a claim on the UK’s attention. Clearly the series needed this level of visibility to begin with, but can the public be expected to keep the attitude of ‘Ooh, I’ll have a look at that show’ for very long before thinking, ‘Christ- it’s that bloody thing again’ ? A Radio Times cover announcing the show’s return and the mid-season unveiling of the iconic monster- fair do’s. Another couple for a WorldCup/Season finale tie-in… plus a pseudo one for Billie Piper’s departure…and Torchwood? Would you be too surprised if a backlash kicks in? As a glossy, effects heavy series you can’t blame the BBC for sticking an awful lot of fanfare behind the show- this isn’t like a long-running soap whose re-usable sets make it relatively cheap to produce and which has a duty to remain broadly similar from week-to-week, year-to-year.Also, let’s not ignore the fact that the heavy coverage in both high and low-brow press is down to what readers are responding to rather than some nefarious plan by the show’s producers. But still, can’t this level of hysteria only be detrimental in the long-term? How many ‘must see’ shows have crashed spectacularly after a couple of spins when they’re no longer this year’s model? Moonlighting and Twin Peaks come to mind, and more recently Lost seems to have plummeted from mainstream hit to minority cult in the space of one season and while that may largely be due to its now premiering on Sky, the general public don’t seem terribly bothered, nicely illustrating their fickleness as they settle down to Ugly Betty for at least a couple of weeks.
With WHO, the arrival of two spin-off shows (so far) and three ‘making of’ strands may help to keep the core series in the public eye, but won’t these just hasten the speed with which it goes from much-loved gem to ubiquitous irritant? To be fair the broad audience of Torchwood probably won’t be setting their Sky+ boxes for Totally Doctor Who or The Sarah Jane Adventures, but it all contributes to the general amount of WHO hanging about in everyone’s peripheral vision, draining one’s patience rather like the Macarena or the Spice Girls. I don’t think anyone can seriously imagine the new WHO lasting uninterrupted until 2031 regardless of how many magazine covers and spin-off series it produces, but might not a vast scaling down be in order before some hypothetical CGI revival of The A-Team starts to look more appealing?Many have wondered if the show’s future might involve switching from annual, three month series to a couple of specials a year, possibly at Christmas and Easter. Then wouldn’t these few adventures once again have to be much publicised events in order to make them worth the BBC’s time and money, as well as always telling ‘end of the universe’ level adventures if they’re going to be sufficiently epic to warrant a stand alone special. Actually that may not be true; with BBC3’s policy of repeating programmes endlessly, it might be possible to slowly build up a library of one-off stories which premier quietly before going on to pick up a gradual audience in some form of syndication. Whoever’s playing the Doctor at this point may well be happy to continue for many years if the low production rate left them free to pursue other work the rest of the time.
This approach might result in less extravagant sets or prosthetics and zero story arcs, but may see an upturn in CGI with effects boffins having more time to execute a smaller number of shots(assuming the BBC haven’t brought back The Tripods by then) and perhaps try out a greater range of design styles. The truth is that so long as WHO is making a stack of cash in merchandising and overseas sales, the BBC will want to keep it going and probably in some form beyond a bunch of spin-off books and officially licensed audios. The problem will be in maintaining WHO’s reputation with the general public as a show that they may want to check out to see what’s going on this week, rather than making it all seem about as appealing as chocolate does… once you’ve un-wrapped two drums of Quality Street, a tray of After Eight mints and a box of cherry liqueurs on Christmas morning that is.Written by Phil Richards
No comments:
Post a Comment