They say that no news is good news, but in an age of huge competition and attention-seeking, do the fans and the programmers of shows like DOCTOR WHO all need to reconsider their own ‘persistence of vision’? All things are time-sensitive and relative, says John Mosby as he tracks how we got here and… what happens next..?
UPDATE: Well, that all escalated quickly, didn’t it? (click here) The announcement that Doctor Who WON’T be coming back for Christmas (sadly, as many were predicting) came mere hours after this article was posted. I’m leaving it up as I think the dissection of the events that lead up to the uncertainity, the ‘hiatus’ and the mistakes made in decisions are worth the examination. I certainly take no joy in the outcome and hope that the Doctor returns soon, perhaps with a far better gameplan than merely crossed-fingers…
As noted in a recent FYI, it’s becoming the norm for longer hiatus periods for tv shows, which has increased both patience and impatience for returning series – especially on streaming/cable. Many a modern programme, at least the ‘genre’ shows, thrive on some level of continued engagement. When a show is about to return, the marketing machine gets put into maximum overdrive with features, interviews, appearances and tie-ins… but with the gaps sometimes being more than a year, sometimes more than two, it’s become increasing obvious that with those longer downtimes, you also run the risk of losing your captive audience unless you keep them satiated. Absence can increase anticipation, but it does not always make the heart grow fonder.
There’s truth to the fact that die-hard fans feel an entitlement to know things that goes beyond the general public’s appetite. Genre shows especially, seem to generate a level of interest and impatience that many ‘conventional’ mainstream shows do not have to face. The general populace might quietly wonder when a show they happen to like is returning (is Call the Midwife on this week, did I miss the latest The Daily Show?) or casually note a continued absence from the schedules after a cancellation happened quietly off-camera without any fanfare (no series three for The Lazarus Effect? Well, phooey…), but Joe Public doesn’t hang on every titbit of production information, they don’t analyse every interview or appearance or cling to positive or negative nuances and their only bulletin board or forum is probably in their workplace cafeteria.
Newspaper gossip and website filler flitter around the edges searching for crumbs to turn into banquets and hunger pangs to turn into headlines. Even genre magazines leaning into one specific show or another sometimes have to scramble for content. Rumours fly by, some expanding in an ouroboros echochamber of wholesale misinformation (intentional or subjective) where the pragmatic secrecy of an ongoing production means that errors are often not corrected in a timely manner. That can be because they are perceived by that production office to be harmless, even useful, or simply that there aren’t enough hours in the day to address every theory out there. Unless it’s a genuine scandal or a legal matter, silence, shrugs or a ‘no comment‘ will often occur, especially if things are actually proceeding as planned. When it comes to rumours with a more distinct and negative edge (perhaps claims of huge conflict or impending doom) it’s wise for the public to remember something that good journalists and lawyers have to know: that just because something isn’t denied doesn’t mean it’s automatically true and the best-laid plans sometimes change. (The worst-laid plans always do). Absence of one thing is not proof of another and unnamed sources don’t carry notable weight if they remain anonymous.
On the flipside, there are cases where there is some kernel of truth in the mix: when there’s a genuine creative-conflict bubbling under rather than a reported fistfight boiling over… if there’s incompatible working styles rather than unprofessional behaviour… but all to varying degrees where no-one will ever go on the record on how much was accurate or how much might be exaggerated in the telling of it – or at least until the memoir is ready. Every studio set has its good days and bad days (sometimes weeks), its brickbats and bouquets. Sometimes the job is too stressful and, yes, sometimes there are divas and assholes (they don’t usually last long). It happens. I’ve been on enough sets to see and experience that there probably isn’t a production out there where every day has been perfect or smooth or where everyone feels they have been appreciated equally.
But if it’s wise for the public to take second-hand news (or lack of news generating an idealistic wish-list) with a pinch of salt, then the show-makers may also have to realise that there is a moment where the void looks back at you and that expectation and anticipation can become a tipping point into something just as risky: ambivalence or distrust. It’s easy to condemn lazy, tabloid behaviour or frustrated fandom getting toxic, but it’s also worth noting that studios and publicists who shake their heads in indignation often shamelessly court those self-same people and outlets when it works in their favour. Both nature and media abhor a vacuum.
There’s little doubt that, right now, Doctor Who is the timeless poster child for such frustration… because, well, there’s no show on air and, more importantly, there may be no current holder of the mantle…
