Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618/@comment-5918438-20160108063433

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
< User:SOTO‎ | Forum Archive‎ | The Panopticon/@comment-1293767-20151029072618
Revision as of 20:34, 27 April 2023 by SV7 (talk | contribs) (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Just to point out, one-episode production blocks have historically only been seen with double banking, associated with Doctor-lite episodes. The most recent Doctor-lite episode was Flatline. So my (very educated) guess is that we're seeing some form of double banking here, too.

Face the Raven is Clara-heavy, while Heaven Sent is hugely Clara-lite. Ashildr is only required for one episode in each of the two sets of production blocks. Though none of those episodes are truly Doctor-lite, are they? In any case, this could be a case of double banking. Not all scenes include Peter Capaldi as the Doctor, after all, so there could have been some clever timing involved here.

I've never before heard of a two-parter taking part in double banking of any sort, but if that's now a thing which has happened, we should allow for that case to be included in our definition by accounting for two 1-episode production blocks produced consecutively with another set of 1-episode production blocks, which is taken care of by a different director.

I'd really like some hard confirmation that this is double banking, though. Filming dates, perhaps?

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.