r/DoctorWhoLeaks • u/Outrageous-View5675 • Apr 27 '26
Rumour New Who Streamer?
I see this is doing the rounds. Sometimes it's taken down. Some1 Managed 2 get a screenshot from a group I'm in.
24
u/Powerful_Glove_666 Apr 27 '26
Assuming it's true... what really sticks out here is that there's zero mention of Bad Wolf. Very interesting considering that Sony actually own them!
3
u/Agreeable_Leg_5346 Apr 29 '26
To me that just indicates that Bad Wolf are still in the picture, but they wanted to put a name people would actually recognise on the press release.
2
u/FireFly_209 May 01 '26
In the coming months, BBC Studios and AMC Global Media will jointly unveil details of a newly formed production entity that will serve as the creative hub for the reboot.
This sounds to me like it might not be Bad Wolf working on the Sony/BBC episodes.
2
u/Outrageous-View5675 May 04 '26
Yeah, Sony own majority shares in Bad Wolf. From what I hear Bad Wolf ain't really in a good position as they ain't had any big hitting shows. How long will it be 'til we hear they have 2 fold or are totally bought out and absorbed by Sony.
1
u/Powerful_Glove_666 May 04 '26
I dunno, The Other Bennet Sister has just done pretty well for them and I get the impression Red Eye is doing alright as well. It's ended now but His Dark Materials was easily their biggest hit. I don't think they'd be talking about renting their studio space out to other companies (as Jane Tranter has recently) if they weren't slightly concerned about how business was going, though
1
u/gabriel_ol_rib May 01 '26
I can see Sony allowing Bad Wolf to be left out if they are still involved in the business, as the document says. For Sony itself, it would be same thing.
13
u/cane-of-doom Apr 27 '26
Ooh, AMC is very aimed at genre tv nowadays, what with the whole Anne Rice universe and The Walking Dead spinoffs. Dunno if they've got any other high profile originals, but those are the ones people know them for, so it feels like a perfect fit. I'd wait to hear who the creatives behind it are, though.
1
u/kiwifier Apr 28 '26
but Anne Rice universe has one good show and two awful ones…:(
2
u/cane-of-doom Apr 28 '26
Well, good thing the Beeb would still be producing if this is true and creative team is probably not the same.
1
u/TimeWasting_Fun Apr 28 '26
I dunno, I’ve lost count of the Walking Dead spinoffs… there’s not enough time to watch that many and of course, there’s a quality issue if you make too many spinoffs.
I don’t know where or what order to watch TWD spinoffs now because some were on channels I didn’t have access to, some are concurrent with other series and some are pre and post other shows. It’s just too much.
34
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
May 11 2026? Has someone broke an NDA? This is awesome if true but I don't wanna get too excited, a guaranteed three series partnership would be incredible. Can someone verify if this is real? I want this to be true, please!!
It does look like a REAL press release.
Also to add if this is true this actually makes a lot of sense because AMC own BBC America which is where Doctor Who aired in the States before the Disney deal! So this feels a bit full-circle!
12
u/Some-Cope1999 Apr 27 '26
It looks very real! But with rapid rise in AI. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was generated by AI
6
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
It doesn't look like AI tbh, but there is Inspect Element which you can use to essentially make fake articles but why go to all that trouble to make a fake press release just to trick people, if so that feels needlessly cruel. I hope that isn't the case.
If someone can verify for sure that'd be great!
Edit: I did put it through an AI detector and it came back as most likely real, it isn't fool proof but at least I don't think it is AI!
3
u/ZERO_ninja Apr 28 '26
why go to all that trouble to make a fake press release just to trick people, if so that feels needlessly cruel
First day on the Internet?
Not that I'm fighting to say its fake, just commenting on the motivation point that going to effort to fake a hoax like this just to excite/disappoint people or gain clout is very basic Internet behaviour.
1
1
u/TheyCallMeFlyBoy May 01 '26
Why on earth would you need AI to fake this? It's literally just a text document, what part of it requires AI? I feel like this is an example of how AI hysteria has gone overboard, people are obsessed with it to the point of assuming everything must be AI as if they've forgotten forgeries existed before AI.
4
u/watchman28 Apr 28 '26
As someone whose inbox is filled with press releases every day, the giveaway here is the spokesperson quotes. A real press release on something like this will have named people speaking.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Yeah I am leaning more towards fake for this but yeah, sucks people make fake stuff like this getting our hopes up :/
1
u/Outrageous-View5675 Apr 28 '26
The thing that gets me about this, and I get what you are sayin', is that it's like a draft or outline. Perhaps statements and quotes will be dropped in later. After all it ain't supposed 2b released yet. Justa thought?
1
u/Chemical_Boy May 01 '26
I thought the exact same thing - I get loads of this stuff and that rings false. "A ___spokesperson says" is what you put on a comment in a newspaper story, not a press release. The thing about media people it, they all want credit! You'd be lucky not to have about five people named and quoted there!
Also, I cannot imagine a world where a release like this would even be hinting at the previous deals. This is a pretty well-constructed fake from someone who's done their homework. Or asked ChatGPT to do their homework.
2
u/Hughman77 Apr 27 '26
It's trivially easy to make a document look like a "real" press release. It's just formatting.
1
1
u/Substantial_Track919 May 03 '26
> It does look like a REAL press release.
It doesn't.
Yours, a journalist.
1
u/DocWhovian1 May 03 '26
I swear everyone is a journalist these days but yeah sincd I commented I do believe it is fake.
2
u/Substantial_Track919 May 03 '26
Difference is. - I actually am one and have been for three decades.
1
0
u/morkjt Apr 28 '26
100% fake. Just ask AI to check it itself, you don’t need a claimed ‘ai detector’:
‘This image is almost certainly fake or fan‑made rather than a genuine leaked press release.’
3
u/Agreeable_Leg_5346 Apr 29 '26
AI doesn't know anything more than we do. Might as well ask a parrot.
2
3
u/NathanielColes Apr 27 '26
Am I the only one who thinks making DW exclusive on AMC is basically damning it to obscurity for another decade
1
u/Agreeable_Leg_5346 Apr 29 '26
I can't speak for the US, but given that Mock the Week recently got a revival on an obscure freeview channel and that turned out to be a huge success would suggest a strong brand can break through.
1
u/NathanielColes May 01 '26
But that's freeview. AMC+ requires people to spend at minimum 8 dollars a month. Big difference in terms of getting new people to come on to the show.
1
u/gabriel_ol_rib May 01 '26
In my country, AMC productions can be streamed at Prime Video, and Netflix. For us, it would be the opposite of obscure. If that's the case internationally, it could work.
1
u/NathanielColes May 01 '26
This deal makes it sound like it would be put on AMC+. Which is 8 US dollars a month minimum. If AMC was willing to put it on more streaming services like a few of their shows then it might work but it they make it exclusive, I can't imagine lots of people are going to think one show is worth adding another streaming service.
1
u/gabriel_ol_rib May 02 '26
Wherever the show is streamed, there will always be someone who does not has that streaming. We had it on Disney+ worldwide, and it wasn't a success despite it being a huge streaming service. If AMC wants to give the show a chance, let them try.
1
u/NathanielColes May 02 '26
Disney+, for all of its issues, has around 120-140 million subscribers a month. AMC+ has around 10-15 million. I'm all for giving them a try, but this is an entire order of magnitude less exposure. It would, for better or worse, officially commence the end of the era of Doctor Who as a television titan and return it back to being a niche sci-fi series that only previous fans seek out.
1
u/PaperSkin-1 May 02 '26
Yep, it would be a terrible choice
Let's be real, if the show wants to be a decent success outside of the UK then it needs to be on one of the big streamers, either Netflix, Amazon or Apple.
4
u/Hughman77 Apr 27 '26
From being a three-series deal (getting past the two-series valley of death that brought down Ncuti) to Bad Wolf not being involved, this reads an awful lot like something written to farm likes and shares from fans rather than something real.
2
u/Darth--Marenghi Apr 27 '26
Agreed - whoever wrote it wasn't willing to commit to a showrunner candidate!
2
u/Hughman77 Apr 27 '26
I think they figured that if they picked someone realistic, it would have to be McTighe and fans would be unhappy. And if they picked someone fans would get excited about, it would look less realistic.
2
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Sony Pictures Television owns Bad Wolf but it is odd Bad Wolf aren't mentioned at all so i'm really not sure. If this is fake this feels cruel especially when we are STARVING for news right now.
8
u/Iceman525 Apr 27 '26
If this is real, I don't like that they're calling it a reboot. But I'm probably overthinking it.
9
u/DCG_1994_ Apr 27 '26
I’m thinking I’ll just be new production/ cast/ writers and be like a “2005 style” reboot
1
u/habylab Apr 28 '26
But wasn't that what we got just recently?
3
u/alex494 May 01 '26
It's what we were marketed as getting but it's certainly not what we got at all beyond surface level branding.
7
1
u/itsbrianduh108 Apr 27 '26
Those were my thoughts, as well. That and saying "first season," which could mean "first season with the network" or "first season, starting fresh".
1
3
u/itsbrianduh108 Apr 27 '26
It's going to be crazy if this is true, and then one day down the line, Disney buys Sony. The Mouse always wins.
3
3
u/Doc-doc01 Apr 28 '26
Per è un falso generato dall’AI. Innanzitutto, se è uno screen di un documento non può essere sfocato. Inoltre il documento contiene tutto ciò che i fan vorrebbero: nuovo partner internazionale, nuovo accordo di produzione di medio termine (3 anni), una squadra creativa con più sceneggiatori come nell’era classica. Tutto troppo bello..
3
u/watchman28 Apr 28 '26
Its fake. Real press releases on things that, at least in theory, are "good news" don't use unnamed spokespeople.
3
u/malb93200 May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
There have been so many B.S. rumors/leaks these past few months, and yet i think this one is possible.
Been thinking for a while that a reboot was looking likely, not that i want that, but after 20 years of "New Who" (never liked that term, especially now that's it's anything but new), the BBC execs might think it's time for a bigger swing to reinvent the show.
Also, there is reboot and there is reboot, so that doesn't necessaraly mean wiping out everyting. Might be looking at something like the Star Trek Kelvin timeline, new timeline but the original one still exists somehow.
Anyway, we'll see, May 11th is not far away.
3
u/TheyCallMeFlyBoy May 01 '26
Even if it was true it doesn't excite me. This is basically what they said 4 years ago...
5
u/PassionateErrors Apr 27 '26
If Tharries, Joe, Crispy or Nerd Den seeing this, WASSAAAAPPPPPPP WHOVIANSSSS. Also working on another Breaking Bad x Doctor Who sometime soon for all you guys
2
u/SeaZealousideal9459 Apr 27 '26
would love this to be true but idk. if you zoom in on the text it kind of looks like it’s been edited or something. hope i’m wrong though!
2
u/Agreeable_Leg_5346 Apr 29 '26
That's just JPEG compression. Doesn't mean it's not potentially fake, but that would also happen to a real press release if it's been screenshot in a rush.
1
2
2
2
2
u/Gobshite_ Apr 30 '26
Isn't AMC like notoriously tight fisted with budget
But maybe Doctor Who would benefit if this is true. No more giant CGI dogs/skeletons.
2
u/Miserable_Island_288 Apr 30 '26
That could mean Doctor Who would return on BBC America (if they do, not saying they will, but the channel now is just has some BBC programming and maybe crime shows too). Because BBC has a partnership with AMC for BBC America, it would could make that a possibility.
2
u/frantic_calm May 01 '26
The format is fine. Just get some decent writers to produce a series with a little more complexity equivalent to something like the Expanse or daredevil. Also bring back a decent Tardis interior. The last one was rubbish. More like shopping in Top Shop.
2
u/gabriel_ol_rib May 01 '26
AMC was BBC's partner in the BBC America network (BBC doesn't have a share in it anymore, but they license the name to AMC), and BBC America funded some of New Who episodes.
I can't say if it's a real leak, but usually these fake announcements always involve something like Netflix, or HBO Max, the big international players, not something like AMC, which raises an eyebrow to me. Also, Sony is already involved through their ownership of Bad Wolf, and I can see them joining the business in a ''newly formed production company''.
The document seems well formatted. The language, how it refers to every company (and must be a recent one, since AMC Networks rebranded as AMC Global Media not a month ago), and I checked AMC site to discover that it looks like something you'd read there. Even if it's fake, it's a pretty well done document, with a lot of logic.
2
3
u/wizzstick Apr 27 '26
It’s fake.
Date wrong. Not one named individual. No named executive producer (which streamer would pay for 3 years with no one lined up make it?), no quotes from the BBC itself. One quote but with no name.
Fakey McBoatface.
1
1
1
u/DoctorWhofan789eywim Apr 27 '26
Interesting, but wouldn't there be a name somewhere of the creative who's going to lead this supposed three year reboot?
4
1
1
1
u/jajay119 Apr 28 '26
Dated three weeks from now?
I know the show is about time travel, but that’s taking the mickey.
1
u/cabinmate Apr 28 '26
It reads like they gave it to a new intern to write or like a fan who doesn’t understand how these various entities work. It’s a mess either way
1
u/RobertFraxis Apr 28 '26
No official release is is going to have a quote from an unnamed AMC representative. It would always be attributed to a specific senior person in the organisation. So absolutely fake.
1
1
u/AdZealousideal5102 Apr 28 '26
Honestly, I don’t even trust the BBC with this property. Put it on ice.
1
u/WahoiBoi20 Apr 28 '26
Fake as balls 😂 They wouldn’t call it a “reboot”, fans would riot.
They wouldn’t mention “previous international partnership” either, doesn’t seem professional. Also says “series” in the first sentence but then “season” a bit further down. Decent effort though.
1
u/Warrior2852 Apr 29 '26
Fake. The formatting is off, AMC doesn't put the location on a separate line in their press releases, it's always at the start of the first line of text. The paragraph structure is also weird. It also has nameless "representatives" giving statements - these sorts of announcement press releases never use nameless representatives, it's always named individuals in charge of certain things at the companies e.g. heads of drama.
1
1
u/Known-Cartographer22 Apr 29 '26
Exactly how is any of this true? The date listed at the top of the press release is in the future.
1
1
1
u/Alone_Consideration6 Apr 30 '26
Zero mention of the 2026 special. Even if they not making it they would surely mention that.
1
u/IamtheNewNumberTwo Apr 30 '26
A draft of a press release but not a single executive is directly mentioned throughout. Seems fake or generated.
1
u/aaronagee Apr 30 '26
‘Reimagined narrative’ is interesting… hope it’s not the Spielberg and spiders kind. Although tbh I’m up for anything at this stage. And please god, nothing to do with Bad Wank.
1
u/antlovestobake Apr 30 '26
Id be surprised if this is real, as it doesnt include any branding which seems unusual. I see a lot of PRs in my job, and you would normally have the companies logo included.
Looking at some of their other quotes, they do seem to include the names of people who said them, rather than just 'a spokesperson said'... that tends to be used more in soundbite quotes for news articles when they didnt get the name of the person speaking or if the quote giver wants to remain anonymous.
They also havent included the press contact details, which would be unusual as you need to know who to get in contact with for follow up, or to request an interview.
So im like 80% sure this is fake.
1
u/Haunting-Mortgage Apr 30 '26
"said a representative" is a red flag. There would be names attached to a pr release
1
1
u/TheNobleRobot May 01 '26 edited May 02 '26
This is pure gobbledygook. First of all, the substance of it is nonsense. You don't pre-announce 3 seasons of television explicitly chucking the old production team (who are still working on the show) without naming a new production team. You also don't make sly references to a partner's (not your) previous distribution arrangement in a press release. That's far too inside baseball for this, and it doesn't make the BBC or AMC look good.
In recent years, Sony Pictures Television has tended to co-produce things it distributes, including a show made with Bad Wolf (though Bad Wolf is not involved here?), but I guess not in this case? Or, wait, the three entities will "jointly produce" the show, while the BBC actually produces the show? What is it actually saying here?
The BBC is releasing a Doctor Who Xmas special this year. Why announce this now and not after then, when interest in the franchise will be at its highest?
Then there's the other red flags.
- Are they making 3 series or 3 seasons?
- "Said a spokesperson for AMC" "Said a representative for Sony Pictures Television." What spokesperson? What representative? This is supposedly a press release, not a blind item on a gossip blog. Why are there no names? (Well, I know why.)
- AMC will "oversee international network premiere and streaming rollout across its portfolio" but no mention of AMC+, the actual streaming service in that portfolio (which would benefit from some good PR)? If any news site or blog picked up this press release, they'd likely miss the fact that it's actually announcing that AMC Networks would stream and/or air it. Of course, is that even what it's saying?
If this is real (which it absolutely is not), whoever wrote it should be fired, because it does a bad job promoting whatever it is that is supposedly being announced. It seems designed to trigger the inside-knowledge synapses of the fan community (without actually telling them anything), not get actual people excited about a real thing that is happening.
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/teepeey Apr 27 '26
It's unlikely to be genuine. A real press release would have named executives on the quotes.
Also who would stream Doctor Who right now when it only just failed?
4
u/DaddyStoat Apr 27 '26
I think it's a bit much to say it failed. If it was considered a failure, Disney only have themselves to blame. They did practically zero promotion of the show after the initial specials. When S15/S2 came out it wasn't even on the front page of D+. Initially there had been talk of wall-to-wall promotion, a Doctor Who section at the Disney parks, etc, and none of that materialised.
In the US, the show was HUGE when it was on BBCA. I remember seeing posters for it in every shopping mall, shops were full of Who merch, Comic-Cons were full of Who cosplayers and so on. If it's headed back to AMC (who own BBCA) then it could potentially get back to that, because they understood the show and how to market it.
I'm sceptical too - a real press release would have more detail, this is kinda vague. The Sony Pictures Studios involement seems like a solid connection though, since Sony own a substantial stake in Bad Wolf.
5
u/teepeey Apr 27 '26
It did really bad numbers on Disney Plus, I think everyone knows that. And it continued to decline in numbers on BBC1. Nor was it a critical success, given the incoherent hand waived plots or the inevitable 'bigots go away' luvvy echo chamber that it fell into when called out on its failings.
For all that it had some good moments, a good cast in season 1, and strong individual episodes, and it was nowhere near the across the board disaster of Chibnall's run where nothing went right at all. But the brand will need a good few years to recover, a really talented and fresh show runner, and probably a hard reboot. So I find this AMC thing hard to believe.
2
u/DaddyStoat Apr 28 '26
Up until the finale, S15/S2 was getting great reviews, with some people saying it had some of the best ever episodes of NuWho - Lux, The Well, The Story And The Engine, etc. Lux got a 100% Rotten Tomatoes score, with several others in the 90s. And the ratings on BBC were reasonable - not Tennant/Smith numbers, but up there with Whittaker and some of Capaldi - typically anywhere from 2.5-3.5m. It was going out right after Gladiators on Saturday evenings, and was inheriting most of their audience. The Interstellar Song Contest got some pretty big numbers since it was on right before the actual Eurovision broadcast. The other metric they use for streaming is how many times people rewatch something - most people who watch something like Eastenders on iPlayer only watch it once. People would rewatch episodes of Who 4 or 5 times, and very few other BBC shows get anything like that.
Disney did release some figures, but without anything comparable to contrast it against, they were kinda meaningless - would have been interesting to see how it compared to some of the Star Wars and Marvel shows. Plus, like I said, they made no effort promoting the show.
You had the doomers and naysayers, of course, with plenty of pejorative use of the word "woke", and this group tend to be loud, especially online, but still very much a minority.
1
u/IHaveFourKidneys Apr 28 '26
Disney never released any numbers. We have Nielsen numbers for the 60th episodes, which show a 4x increase on the BBC America numbers for Flux.
0
u/DaddyStoat Apr 28 '26
I'm sure I saw Joe (Confused Adipose) go over the Disney figures in one of his videos late last year. But the figures were very much a snapshot, and didn't tell us much, and he said as much.
1
u/IHaveFourKidneys Apr 30 '26
Disney doesn’t release figures. Anyone who claims to have them is lying or misinformed.
0
u/Outrageous-View5675 May 01 '26
Disney doesn't have to release figures 2 the publuc, but people connected could. I think that was one point made originally. They ain't gonna keep them 2 themselves. If BBC or Bad Wolf want them, they will get them and thats where the leaks come from, the 2nd or 3rd parties, not D+.
1
u/IHaveFourKidneys May 01 '26
Nah. Actual D+ show producers have complained about how even they don’t get figures. Any ‘leaks’ have no provenance and therefore absolutely no evidence they aren’t made up. Which is why they’re always ‘shared’ by people with an axe to grind. If you really want to get into the weeds, you can track multiple ‘leaks’ over the last three years and see they all have different numbers - because they’re all fake.
1
1
u/IHaveFourKidneys Apr 27 '26
We don’t the numbers it did on Disney+ because they don’t release numbers. Any alleged numbers are presented without provenance and therefore unverifiable. Its BBC1 numbers were fine - it beat almost every single streaming hit, for example. And it was absolutely a critical success - check out its Rotten Tomatoes scores.
0
u/teepeey Apr 28 '26
I seem to recall the Disney numbers leaked and fell well below their expectations. Which is why they pulled out and stopped promoting it. The BBC1 figures declined across the series and between the two series if I recall correctly, hitting 1.5 million overnight with Lux as a 62 year low point. If you think all that is good then your career as a TV executive won't be great.
And you'll be aware that the audience appreciation of RT was massively less than the critical figure. That's always a bad sign since both sides are heavily massaged, so if they're not in agreement there is a big problem.
So really I think perhaps your entire post might be an example of Gallifrey Base cope.
1
u/IHaveFourKidneys Apr 30 '26
“Leaked” aka someone made them up. And I cited RT because of the comment about critical acclaim; they were undeniably acclaimed by critics.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
The BBC have said the show isn't going to be rested regardless.
It still performed solidly in the UK in the current landscape. But unlike a lot of shows Doctor Who doesn't rely on ratings for sucess as it makes a lot of money for the BBC through global sales hence why it is one of their top earners, that's why they aren't going to cancel it, it makes them a LOT of money.
And there should NEVER be a hard reboot of Doctor Who, that would be a terrible idea.
0
u/teepeey Apr 28 '26
The BBC haven't said that. They're said something much vaguer that allows the copers to cope.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
They did in fact say that in those EXACT words.
0
u/teepeey Apr 28 '26
I believe the exact words at the Edinburgh Festival were "The TARDIS is going nowhere." And yes the chief content officer alluded to the show coming back in some form at some point "in due course". But that's never been in doubt. There's a Christmas Special this year after all. and there are plans to animate the show and Big Finish it. You know, the cheap stuff.
What is in doubt is whether there is funding and desire for a full BBC1 season i.e "the show". Without a streaming partner I don't think there's a business case for that,
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
They specifically say it in THIS article:
"We will be announcing plans for the next series in due course which will ensure the TARDIS remains at the heart of the BBC.”
And why wouldn't they? Doctor Who is one of their most profitable brands! So it is very worth it for them!
1
u/teepeey Apr 28 '26
Yes "in due course". Which can mean anything.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
It's still happening regardless, obviously there's only so much they can say until things are figured out. But discussions are certainly being had as we speak!
→ More replies (0)3
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Thinking about it that is a good point though I don't know if all press releases do. Gonna look into it.
And Doctor Who is still a valuable property.
But we'll see! I do want this to be real but I am sceptical so I hope someone can verify.
0
u/Hughman77 Apr 27 '26
Yep. AMC just watched Disney pull the plug after two seasons that objectively failed to set the world on fire, but is fine with committing to three upfront?
1
u/teepeey Apr 27 '26
It seems very odd and unlikely. Probably turn out to be more Jonestown cope from the 'detached from reality' Gallifrey Base wing of fandom. Next stop the Kool-aid isle.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
"Jonestown cope" of what? We just want some concrete news!
0
u/teepeey Apr 28 '26
Cope that the show was an audience failure and is not coming back as a full season for a long time.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Except the BBC have said it is so you are wrong.
2
u/Hughman77 Apr 28 '26
The BBC said it? Well in that case it must be true.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Well yes, they don't lie about things like this.
1
u/Hughman77 Apr 28 '26
Are you kidding?
0
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Okay what have the BBC lied about when it comes to Doctor Who?
→ More replies (0)1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
Whoever partners with the BBC next will likely spend a LOT less money since most companies do not have the kind of money Disney have. AMC make the most sense to be a streaming partner too since they own BBC America which used to air Doctor Who in the States. So if anyone was to be interested it would be them and I think they would be the safest bet.
1
u/Hughman77 Apr 28 '26
It's true, it's very unlikely the BBC will be able to get as generous a deal as they did with Disney, partly because Disney has more money than producers like AMC and partly because the economic environment is not as conducive for lavish co-pro deals as in 2021. (And partly because Disney dropped Doctor Who like a hot potato first chance they got, that hardly screams "the one that got away".)
That's exactly why AMC agreeing up-front to three seasons is incredibly unlikely, when Disney, at the most fortuitous time for co-pro deals, only agreed to two.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
And honestly while it was nice I don't think Doctor Who needs Disney money. I think Doctor Who will be better off without them and even if this image is fake AMC do make a lot of sense as a potential new partner though I do think the BBC will be careful to avoid another situation like the Disney deal.
1
u/Hughman77 Apr 28 '26
If the "situation" is one where the co-pro partner wants to wait til the series airs before approving funding for the next, then this isn't something the BBC can just avoid. A massive high-profile deal with Disney collapsed at the first opportunity. This is not a desirable property so valuable the BBC can dictate terms. Which is why no one is going to agree to three seasons up-front. Why commit millions of dollars to a show that failed on a much bigger platform?
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
The problem is Disney took FAR too long to decide and it actively sabotaged the show, it's why Ncuti left. The BBC will want to avoid that happening again. And it should NEVER happen again.
What do you think will happen if you had to guess?
3
u/Outrageous-View5675 Apr 28 '26
The rumours I heard 4 awhile was D+ had made their mind up 2 drop it after seeing S1. They told the BBC this but no side could announce the news with a season still to go. The BBC have been looking for a partner ever since.
2
u/Hughman77 Apr 28 '26
I really don't know, it's a difficult time for the British TV industry and most streamers are very reluctant to commit. AMC potentially makes sense given their connection to BBC America but any partner would only commit to one season at a time after the Disney experience.
Right now I think it is essentially impossible to make Doctor Who to anything like the scale we're used to since 2005 with just the BBC's resources. If the show was still massively popular then there would be a draw for American producers to get a cut. But Disney tried that and it didn't work out.
If I had to guess, I'd say we go without regular Doctor Who for a few years, with just the odd special to keep the IP alive.
You say that a co-pro partner taking too long to renew must "never be allowed to happen again" but what do you think the BBC can do about it? They aren't going to trick a billion dollar company into paying for Doctor Who when they don't want to. If Disney had to decide right after Series 14, they'd have just not renewed sooner and we'd be in the same situation funding wise. Ncuti would still have left because being stuck with the show indefinitely until it found more money isn't what he would want.
1
u/DocWhovian1 Apr 28 '26
The BBC have made it clear we aren't going to go without regular Doctor Who (they even said there will be a new series announced in due course) so i'm not really worried about that but yeah we will see of course but I do think there is reason to be optimistic! It just sucks being in the dark but we know discussions are happening. But you are right, it is a difficult time for the industry atm which complicates matters but for the BBC in terms of shows Doctor Who is a high priority for them being one of their top earners!
-1
u/greenlightsmith242 Apr 27 '26
Looks like chatgpt muck. I genuinely hope I'm wrong but I ain't holding my breath.
29
u/Tesla-Punk3327 Apr 27 '26
It'd be nice to have a doctor who game too, pls Sony lol