BBC Says Less Dr Who in favour of 'Sherlock'

[captain swoop]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13784334

Do you think it's beacuse it's cheaper to make than Dr Who? or am I being synical?

[TheOncomingStorm]

Could be what the article states the guy at the head of both is just finding it hard to do both at once.

If it was a money concern why not just get rid of those footbal matches, nobody watches those right?

[captain swoop]

I think they see a bigger market for 'Sherlock' it's less 'geeky' I suppose. Why should they cut the Doc just because he has lost interest and would rather push his pet project? Let someone else have a go writingg or producing, when did it become a one man show?

[Solfe]

I think Mr. Moffat needs to pick a show to write for... He is one of my favorites, but there are other people out there who can write too.

Dr. Who can be pretty great and I hope Sherlock is equally great, but I would rather see Dr. Who.

[TheOncomingStorm]

The thing is I like both. I loved Sherlock since a kid and really like this new series.

[Van Rijn]

Are these new stories or variations on the old ones? If new, I'm a little surprised (his mysteries in Dr. Who could be better).

I don't know if I can get into another Sherlock Holmes series after the Jeremy Brett version. I expect I'd keep comparing them.

[captain swoop]

Sherlock is just Dr Who without a Tardis and Aliens set in present day london with names stolen from the Sherlock Holmes books as far as I can see. from the episodes I endured.

[jokergirl]

Rather have less and high quality stuff than risk being burnt out on only one series. Some Dr. Who episodes are starting to smack a bit of tired author syndrome, and I'd hate to see the series jump the shark.

I like the new Sherlock, though the pilot was the best so far. I didn't like the one with the picture very much (I knew the clue was in the picture but they stubbornly refused showing it, such things go on my nerves) and I'm not really sure what to think of M. yet. The pilot did a good modern twist on the old story.

[captain swoop]

Problem with Dr Who is they have a whole story packed with characters , incident and plot enough to fill a series and rusdh through it in an hour.
There's something to ne said for the old 4 episode format.

[tusenfem]

I liked the four Sherlock episode, and I would love to see more.
But I don't like to see it made at cost of the Doctor.
Though I must say that that whole BBC webformation is kind of difficult to understand.

This I find rather confusing:

Last week the BBC announced that they were filming 14 new Doctor Who episodes, including a Christmas special, to be broadcast from next year.

But Mr Cohen said that not all of the commissioned stories would be transmitted in 2012.

"There will be some episodes, but there won't be a full series, so we won't have a 13-part run," he told the audience at The Church and Media Conference.

[Paul Beardsley]

Are these new stories or variations on the old ones? If new, I'm a little surprised (his mysteries in Dr. Who could be better).

A lot of the mysteries are reworkings of the original stories with a modern-day slant, a bit like the later Basil Rathbone ones, but with some reversals.

For instance, in the original novel, A Study in Scarlet, the letters RACHE are written in blood by a dying victim. The silly old police think the victim was writing RACHEL but clever old Sherlock knew it was German for "revenge".

Whereas in the pilot episode, A Study in Pink, the letters RACHE are written in blood by a dying victim. The silly old police think the victim was writing the German word for "revenge" but clever old Sherlock knew it was a woman's name.

I don't know if I can get into another Sherlock Holmes series after the Jeremy Brett version. I expect I'd keep comparing them.

The two are very different beasts. On watching the pilot I was quite sold on the idea of a 21st century interpretation. Previously I had considered the idea pointless as Sherlock belongs in 19th century foggy London, and we have a plethora of modern day detectives, including some very quirky and lateral ones such as Jonathan Creek. However, my enthusiasm was short-lived. They tried to cram loads of mysteries into each subsequent episode, making it hard to feel engaged, and the whole Moriarty plot was contrived and melodramatic. I think the intended audience consists of women who are intrigued by the dashing and possibly gay man who wears cool clothes, and who couldn't really care less about the mysteries.

[Paul Beardsley]

Some Dr. Who episodes are starting to smack a bit of tired author syndrome, and I'd hate to see the series jump the shark.

Doctor Who is possibly the only series that can't jump the shark.

[Jim]

... I was quite sold on the idea of a 21st century interpretation. ...

Okay, slightly OT, but it will bug me until I get it settled.

I have a vague memory of a (short-lived) TV series about Sherlock Holmes' granddaugther or some such, who managed to ressurect him in some fashion and the two of them went about solving mysteries together.

Anyone else, or is the dementia kicking in again?

[Paul Beardsley]

Problem with Dr Who is they have a whole story packed with characters , incident and plot enough to fill a series and rusdh through it in an hour.
There's something to ne said for the old 4 episode format.

Yes, the four episode (90 minute) format gives them time to have the companion captured, escape, be recaptured, wander interminably around in similar-looking corridors, and so on. Then there were the great cliff-hangers, such as the villain saying, "Kill the Doctor now!" only to be resolved next time with, "On second thoughts, don't."

Sometimes the format was used to very good effect, and it was nice to feel it wasn't all rushed, but it's very easy to have a rose-tinted view of the classic series.

[Paul Beardsley]

Okay, slightly OT, but it will bug me until I get it settled.

I have a vague memory of a (short-lived) TV series about Sherlock Holmes' granddaugther or some such, who managed to ressurect him in some fashion and the two of them went about solving mysteries together.

Anyone else, or is the dementia kicking in again?

Never heard of it, but try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ret...herlock_Holmes

Also, I forgot to add that the inability of police to do police work also detracts from the Moffat version of Sherlock. It's not that they jump to wrong conclusions a la Inspector Lestrade, they just don't seem to do anything.

[Moose]

On watching the pilot I was quite sold on the idea of a 21st century interpretation. Previously I had considered the idea pointless as Sherlock belongs in 19th century foggy London, and we have a plethora of modern day detectives, including some very quirky and lateral ones such as Jonathan Creek.

Heh. I'm afraid Filmation beat you to it, at least for very large values of 21.

[Van Rijn]

Heh. I'm afraid Filmation beat you to it, at least for very large values of 21.

I don't think I've ever seen that one, but for completeness I'll also mention the more recent "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century." In that one, his body is resurrected by future technology and he works with a robot Watson, who was designed to look like the original and tries to emulate him, using the original Watson's records.

[SeanF]

I liked the four Sherlock episode, and I would love to see more.

Four?

[Paul Beardsley]

Heh. I'm afraid Filmation beat you to it, at least for very large values of 21.

Joke acknowledged... I did of course mean a 21st century contemporary setting.

[Moose]

Four?

.

[ToSeek]

Yes, the four episode (90 minute) format gives them time to have the companion captured, escape, be recaptured, wander interminably around in similar-looking corridors, and so on. Then there were the great cliff-hangers, such as the villain saying, "Kill the Doctor now!" only to be resolved next time with, "On second thoughts, don't."

Sometimes the format was used to very good effect, and it was nice to feel it wasn't all rushed, but it's very easy to have a rose-tinted view of the classic series.

Or in the Earth-bound stories, have some officious bureaucrat keep the Doctor from implementing his solution for two or three (or six) episodes so you can fill it in with him driving around in Bessie and complaining to the Brigadier.

[Garrison]

Or in the Earth-bound stories, have some officious bureaucrat keep the Doctor from implementing his solution for two or three (or six) episodes so you can fill it in with him driving around in Bessie and complaining to the Brigadier.

And those old earth bound episodes are a reminder that budget constraints at the BBC aren't a new thing.

[tusenfem]

Four?

Oops, bad memory, three.

[Paul Beardsley]

Or in the Earth-bound stories, have some officious bureaucrat keep the Doctor from implementing his solution for two or three (or six) episodes so you can fill it in with him driving around in Bessie and complaining to the Brigadier.

Agreed, but in defence of the Pertwee days, (a) there was an in-story justification (the Doctor's exile) for the almost exclusive Earth- or low-Earth-orbit-based setting in his first couple of seasons (compared with the 2005 season which was exclusively Earth- or low-Earth-orbit-based because RTD was convinced everybody would switch off if the TARDIS landed anywhere else), (b) Pertwee's Doctor eventually visited no fewer than ten previously unseen planets (11 if you count the Drashig planet), and also revisited some of them in other historical periods (Peladon, Metebelis 3), and (c) at the time (1970-74) Doctor Who was practically the only halfway adult TV series that featured aliens visiting the Earth.

Did you guess the Pertwee era was one of my favourites?

[captain swoop]

I liked Pertwee, they are the earliest episodes I can remember watching with any detail when I was a sprog. ANything earlier is vague and now I can't remember if I saw some of them then or in later repeats and videos. I still think there is too much set on present day Earth.

[SeanF]

Oops, bad memory, three.

Thank you. I was concerned that I had missed one somehow.