Russell T. Davies returns as showrunner...

Glaysher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
197
There is a difference [and admittedly a lot of overlap] between the two jobs. A Producer is usually more involved towards the beginning of a project with getting and keeping the money flowing. Then a Showrunner is usually more involved in how to spend the money to make the show a reality.
I've always thought of it like a show has several producers but the producer who is responsible for the creative direction of the show is the show runner.
 

CupofJoe

Some medals you wear on your heart not your sleeve
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
844
I've always thought of it like a show has several producers but the producer who is responsible for the creative direction of the show is the show runner.
Yep that is pretty much how I see it too. Producers are the money and Showrunners are at the pointy end.,
 

Vladd67

Stake Holder
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
3,665
Seems to me that an executive producer is an actor so desperate for work they had to create their own work.
 

Mon0Zer0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
447
This is probably controversial, but would it not have been better to have rested Dr Who again for a while. It is no longer very original (which I admit could change with RTD) but my main problem is it's budget. If you see the SFF output of other channels post-Game of Thrones there is now some great SFF being made for TV. New pay-to-view channels like Apple TV and Disney are leading with their new SFF output. The BBC however, spends most of it's SFF drama budget here (and on His Dark Materials), and, as an adult, those aren't the kind of SFF I really want to see. I want them to commission something a little more original too (and by that, I don't mean a female doctor or a different shaped TARDIS).

The problem isn't so much the budget - it's the writing. Early Dr Who had zero budget, even compared to the times. If they wrote to the budget rather than trying to pretend they can make the Mandalorian, the show would be better for it. Smaller premises, less universe ending peril, more character focused plots. Less spectacle, more spectacular dialogue. Dr Who doesn't have to be big and epic, like lord of the rings - just a timelord.
 

Ursa major

Bearly Believable
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
22,638
Location
England
I want them to commission something a little more original too
They don't have a good track record with SFF. For instance, Outcasts** was simply dreadful.


** - Apologies if this dredges up any unwanted memories of that utter disaster.
 

thaddeus6th

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
6,855
Location
UK, Yorkshire
Mon0Zer0, the fanboy/hero worship of the Doctor right from the start of New who was a problem, replacing a chap trying to do good with the Most Amazing Alien Ever who single-handedly ended the Time War (a cool-sounding but stupid idea that locked away the Timelords and meant the Daleks had to be brought back repeatedly with deus ex screwdriver).

The desire of some of the people behind New Who to stamp their mark on Who has shown a fundamental misunderstanding that the small amount of hard lore gives massive freedom to every writer who follows. Not to mention the inane retconning does a great disservice to Hartnell (only seen bits and pieces of the First Doctor in New Who but not a fan of the writing which always makes him seem rather more surprised at female empowerment than a man who travelled with Susan and Barbara ought to be).

Ursa, I amazed myself with incredible masochism by watching the whole of that. The writing was fantastically terrible.

Apparently soundwaves can create life. And if you stop transmitting said sound, living organisms (viruses) will vanish. *sighs*
 

.matthew.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2020
Messages
1,014
The Doctor discovers that her entire timeline is being manipulated by a shadowy cabal called the Beebeecee, the origin of all the catastrophes and invasions she's managed to defeat. With a flourish of her sonic screwdriver she defeats the Beebeecee and...
The Doctor discovers that she's an impostor, created by the Beebeecee to alienate the Doctor's friends. Tracking down their shadowy basement lair located beneath Cardiff, she commits ritual suicide to release the lock on the cage, freeing the true Doctor.

Free at last, the real Doctor breathes fresh air, ready to fight his arch-enemy, not the Daleks, but rather... The Russel!
 

paranoid marvin

Run VT Erroll!
Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
3,430
One of the unique things about Doctor Who is that it gets the opportunity to naturally reboot/reinvent itself every few years with a change of Doctor. In many respects it doesn't have to refer or relate to what has happened in previous episodes/stories/series. Take the Doctor off to a different planet/universe/time period and start again from there.

Just like with Pertwee's Doctor stuck in contemporary Britain, there's nothing wrong with perhaps setting a whole run of stories in say Tudor England or perhaps even a few hundred years in the future. I also see nothing wrong with revisiting some of the old stories - after all they are now 40-50 years old. How about another Fang Rock for example?

The possibilities for Who are virtually limitless, and t struggle to come up with decent, interesting storylines and/or scenarios should be a virtual impossibility.
 

thaddeus6th

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
6,855
Location
UK, Yorkshire
You say that, Marvin, but with all of time and space to play with the current lot went with politic preaching. Because what escapism really needs is inserting contentious modern day arguments into it.

[I'm not a Trump fan but when I watch Doctor Who I don't want the villain to be a tediously 2D representation of him].
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,818
One of the unique things about Doctor Who is that it gets the opportunity to naturally reboot/reinvent itself every few years with a change of Doctor. In many respects it doesn't have to refer or relate to what has happened in previous episodes/stories/series. Take the Doctor off to a different planet/universe/time period and start again from there.

Just like with Pertwee's Doctor stuck in contemporary Britain, there's nothing wrong with perhaps setting a whole run of stories in say Tudor England or perhaps even a few hundred years in the future. I also see nothing wrong with revisiting some of the old stories - after all they are now 40-50 years old. How about another Fang Rock for example?

The possibilities for Who are virtually limitless, and t struggle to come up with decent, interesting storylines and/or scenarios should be a virtual impossibility.

A good starting point would be to hire new writers .
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
18,818
The Doctor discovers that her entire timeline is being manipulated by a shadowy cabal called the Beebeecee, the origin of all the catastrophes and invasions she's managed to defeat. With a flourish of her sonic screwdriver she defeats the Beebeecee and...

The Dallas ( it was a dream) approach is locking better and better.:D
 

paranoid marvin

Run VT Erroll!
Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
3,430
You say that, Marvin, but with all of time and space to play with the current lot went with politic preaching. Because what escapism really needs is inserting contentious modern day arguments into it.

[I'm not a Trump fan but when I watch Doctor Who I don't want the villain to be a tediously 2D representation of him].


I see nothing wrong with incorporating modern values into tv series, but I think it has to be done subtly and for the benefit - not to the detriment - of the story. There were times when 'old' Who highlighted issues of the day (nuclear power, the environment, morality issues) but these were interspersed with far more fantasy elements.

I cannot comment too much on current Who as I stick to the classic series, but I agree that (especially in today's age) the more escapism from real-world events, the better. I suppose though the main driving force behind what the Beeb and Who writers decide will be the audience figures.
 

paranoid marvin

Run VT Erroll!
Supporter
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
3,430
A good starting point would be to hire new writers .


I suppose it will in some point depend on what they have been told to write. At the end of the day, if the Beeb wants to go in a certain direction with a tv show, the writers have to manage the best they can with what direction they've been given.

There was a time in 'old' Who were the writers started to get carried away with more and more scary stories, but then the new director of the Beeb pulled them back and said they had to be more family friendly. I think that a similar situation happened with McCoy's Who, but that could equally have been the intentional running-down of the show from a director who disliked the show.
 

M. Robert Gibson

Member 41015
Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
1,312
but that could equally have been the intentional running-down of the show from a director who disliked the show.
I seem to remember some interview that it was the director general of the BBC (Grade?) at the time who didn't like the show, so ordered it dropped

From Wikipedia
"In 1985 the channel's controller Michael Grade attempted to cancel the series, but this became an 18-month hiatus instead. He also had Colin Baker removed from the starring role in 1986. The role was recast with Sylvester McCoy, but falling viewing numbers, a decline in the public perception of the show and a less-prominent transmission slot saw production ended in 1989 by Peter Cregeen, the BBC's new head of series. Although it was effectively cancelled with the decision not to commission a planned 27th season, which would have been broadcast in 1990, the BBC repeatedly affirmed, over several years, that the series would return."


And this about the Seventh Doctor
"Although Michael Grade had left the BBC in 1987 to take up a new position as Chief Executive of Channel 4, Doctor Who remained in its poor slot opposite Coronation Street in seasons of only fourteen 25-minute episodes, and continued to suffer in the ratings. Jonathan Powell, the new Controller of BBC 1, regarded Nathan-Turner with contempt, and the BBC's new Head of Series, Peter Cregeen, decided to cancel the series, a decision which was clear to the production team by the end of production on the twenty-sixth season in August 1989."
 

Similar threads


Top