Elle wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:17 pm
I know it would never have happened, of course, but I'd have been happy for the show to go back to the videotaped style again (or at very least a return to the realistic level of series 4).
I think after the very same-y run of episodes made from late 1965 after the US to mid-1967, it was good to have a change. But I can see why they took that approach; many US shows on the networks at that time were extremely consistent from week to week in tone and content. And I can see how there
was a change from late 1967 onwards; if anything, it gets quite experimental... and some of it works and some of it doesn't.
It had clearly run it's course by 1969 in the form it had evolved into. The show had burned all it's bridges though by going down the all-film / international money route and the powers-that-be were probably reluctant to be seen to be taking a backwards step with it.
I'm always wary about series that try to much to good "backwards". I've a feeling that David and Maddie explicitly state this sentiment at some point towards the end of "Moonlighting" - a wonderful series where I love the early straight-forward crime capers as much as I love the bizarre post-modern character plays that came later.
Added to that, the show found itself in a situation whereby the style it was being made in was only working with Clemens at the helm. It's a bit like the situation with Doctor Who back in 2010: Regardless of whether we liked it or not ourselves, Russell.T.Davies clearly loved and understood how to make DW universally popular. But once he moved on, it started to gradually slip in popularity.
The big shift - as I recall - was in late 2013/early 2014 after the 50th anniversary. I remember by late 2014 there were colleagues in the office who'd watched it avidly in 2012 not even being aware that there was a new season.
Russel's 2005 reboot really was smart. We've been rewatching it again of late and it is so bang on in its approach to capturing a family audience and being accessible on a wide scale. We've just started on the 2010 series and we're massively enjoying that as well - partly because we wanted something new in terms of approach and style, but also because we like this sort of "dark fairy tale" narrative style that's clearly got more appeal for the original audience of youngsters who are now Young Adults (and also more attractive for the BBC America audience which was now an important secondary market).
Now he's taken it back on again, there is seemingly nobody else waiting in the wings to sustain it in the same way after him and I fully expect the same thing to eventually happen again when he leaves for a second time - unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat somehow
I think that within the next few years, there should be experienced TV professionals who grew up on "Doctor Who" in 2005 and have just the same passion to move it forwards and reinvent it as Russell did back then. Can't wait for that! So exciting!
Some programmes eventually become the victim of their own enormous success (The Avengers and Dr.Who included).
Quite - with 'dramatic' series of this sort there is a danger of being buried by their own history. But I still think that a lot of the most fascinating series are those that
do move forwards now and again rather than staying the same. The only problem is whether the audience is prepared to move along with them. That third season is often
so tricky. So odd - we went back and watched the whole of "Between the Lines" the other year and dreaded getting to the third and final run when the format changed significantly... but as it turned out we loved the whole run and indeed some of the best scripts were in that last batch.
All the best
Andrew