Doctor Who Club of Australia

Theta Sigma · Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 3959

Last night I saw the last of the three part story that began the fifth season of the A-Team and I thought this might be the time to ask whether the current Doctor Who series should do a three parter. Its format of 45 minutes is therefore the equilavent of 6 x 25 minutes episodes in the classic series so it would be interesting to see if a three parter does happen.

One thing good I can say about three parters is that since all the episodes have their own individual names this means that viewers would think that the second of the three episodes is the concluding episode only to find out at the end they have to wait another week for the conclusion. It would be quite a surprise.

One drawback I can see with a three parter based on how it was done on the A-Team is that the first episode starts off promising, the second ends very climatically but the plot for the third is not done effectively leading to an unsatisfying conclusion.

However if a three parter can be done well, then I would definitely like to see it.

charlie · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject:

I would like to see a three parter but it would have to be a good story. Nothing half arsed.

SharazJek · Joined: 12 Aug 2005 Posts: 889 Location: Hobart, Tasmania

I voted no primarily because it would have to be VERY good to bring the casual viewer back each week.

And it's those general viewer ratings that are keeping the show alive.

Kerr Avon · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 478

I suppose a three-parter would allow a bigger budget for sets and costumes which might benefit a story set on an alien planet. it would need to be the right story though...

Greg · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:

It certainly would need to be the right story! The equivalent length stories, 6-parters, are usually over-padded. Not all of them, of course, but such a large percentage.

I also agree with Mr Jek - the series is being made for a very large audience, and hoping to attract more. Extended length stories aren't casual-viewer friendly. I think the days of over two-parts are gone.

mortigitempo · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 10

I'm sick of one-parters..... Doctor Who needs the cliffhanger!!!!!!!

Isn't that what your meant to be spending all week thinking about.... how is he going to get out of that?

Every episode should be a 2-parter... most of the 1-parters are far too rushed.... they only seem to work towards the end of the two seasons, where there is some continuity between previous stories (which virutually makes it more than one episode)...

I mean you could virtually call Aliens of London-Whateverthenextonewascalled-Boom Town a three parter yes???

montypython · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:36 am Post subject:

I voted no. Sometimes if I've got some time to spare, I'll watch a Doctor Who DVD. But if I want to see the whole of a 2 parter, I'm sitting there for 90 minutes! I couldn't do it with a 3 parter. I need resolution, even if I've seen it before.

mortigitempo · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 10

doctor who isn't about resolutions, it's about the cliffhanger, period.

montypython · Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject:

SharazJek · Joined: 12 Aug 2005 Posts: 889 Location: Hobart, Tasmania

mortigitempo · Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 10

Greg · Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject:

FredDag · Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 69

I would defiently so no. I was never fond of the six parters, they never worked really well. The two parter's seem to be perfect for me.

One parters can work well as well, just look at the other sci fi shows around. Babylon 5 did it really well!

Also it's a rating's thing, for Dr Who to survive it can't get boring. I lot of us complain the some of the 1 parters feel rushed but the general audience love them.

Dazzler · Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject:

I don't mind three-parters but I'm quite happy with the one-parter as it means if I miss an episode, I don't have to skip the following ones so I don't get too confused. I also think the audience wouldn't like it as it seems a lot of people these days aren't keen on cliffhangers. Personally, I like it when Doctor Who has one two/three-parter episodes per season.

Sulp Niar · Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject:

Tegan · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:

I voted no for really one main reason. Two episodes run together well as a 90 minute film. Three episodes would be like trying to write a 135 minute movie.

There just aren't that many 2 1/4 hour films that hold together well. The ones that do are generally languidly paced.

With a show that is as fast paced as Dr Who is nowadays, there would most likely have to be a big hole in the pacing somewhere in episode two, otherwise it would start to look and sound like a Tolstoy novel. 13 episodes a year with 2 or 3 two parters means the writers are scripting 2 or 3 movies per year, plus a mini-series.

It must be hellishly hard to write as many stories as they do and still come up with a well paced show almost every week. They tell as much story arc in one or two weeks now as the classic shows did in 4 to 6.