|
Post by masterdoctor on Oct 30, 2018 21:15:28 GMT
I mean I agree that these numbers are great, but 5-6 million is very good for shows in general. Why is there such a dismissal of that. The Capaldi years were by no way a failure and to act as if they were would be a bit disingenuous and a disservice to the hard work put into those episodes whether or not you enjoy them or not. 5s and 6s aren't a bad number, if they're just your overnights and relative to the budget of the series. The problem comes when that's your overalls or when that's your high point of the series' numbers. Capaldi was regularly stuck in the 3s overnight which is a big problem for a non-soap drama. Easties and its ilk can get away with those numbers because of how cheaply they're produced: Who can't. Just ask Vanity Fair how well it did on 4s.
Admire hard work yes, but the numbers don't care.
But then it also has to said that a lot of people don’t watch live tv as much as they used to, unless it is event tv, which right now Who is but by no means will stay that way even for the rest of Jodie’s tenure, which is just realistic. Also Doctor Who was still one of the most profitable shows the BBC made during the Capaldi era, especially internationally and other media. It seems that now it’s okay to say that Capaldi wasn’t successful just because of overnights and weekly when there are more applicable factors these days for regular tv. And Vanity Fair isn’t a fair example as unlike Doctor Who, it doesn’t have any presence in home media and merchandising etc. Also Who obviously can as it has during the last 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Oct 30, 2018 21:39:39 GMT
5s and 6s aren't a bad number, if they're just your overnights and relative to the budget of the series. The problem comes when that's your overalls or when that's your high point of the series' numbers. Capaldi was regularly stuck in the 3s overnight which is a big problem for a non-soap drama. Easties and its ilk can get away with those numbers because of how cheaply they're produced: Who can't. Just ask Vanity Fair how well it did on 4s.
Admire hard work yes, but the numbers don't care.
But then it also has to said that a lot of people don’t watch live tv as much as they used to, unless it is event tv, which right now Who is but by no means will stay that way even for the rest of Jodie’s tenure, which is just realistic. Also Doctor Who was still one of the most profitable shows the BBC made during the Capaldi era, especially internationally and other media. It seems that now it’s okay to say that Capaldi wasn’t successful just because of overnights and weekly when there are more applicable factors these days for regular tv. And Vanity Fair isn’t a fair example as unlike Doctor Who, it doesn’t have any presence in home media and merchandising etc. Also Who obviously can as it has during the last 5 years. I never said I expect Jodie's tenure to sustain high figures throughout. Obviously, I can't know that. And even with that extra profit, Who is still at the mercy of the domestic UK audience by the very machinery that funds it in the first place: the licence fee payer. If they ain't watching, overnight, on-demand or iplayer, the BBC has no grounds to keep making it. All that merch and foreign sales is nice, but it's gravy: it's not what dictates if Who gets another season. The BBC simply doesn't work that way: it's not Hasbro or Disney.
And obviously Who couldn't if it had to resort to a controversial gamble like a female Doctor, or even smaller details like ditching arcs or not using classic monsters for a series: if Capaldi did 'fine' to BBC execs, they'd have cast Kris Marshall or another white male actor and just gone, business as normal and 13 would've fought Daleks by now. However much many of us love Capaldi, including myself, it does his era no favours either if we start ignoring the facts.
|
|
|
Post by masterdoctor on Oct 30, 2018 22:05:15 GMT
But then it also has to said that a lot of people don’t watch live tv as much as they used to, unless it is event tv, which right now Who is but by no means will stay that way even for the rest of Jodie’s tenure, which is just realistic. Also Doctor Who was still one of the most profitable shows the BBC made during the Capaldi era, especially internationally and other media. It seems that now it’s okay to say that Capaldi wasn’t successful just because of overnights and weekly when there are more applicable factors these days for regular tv. And Vanity Fair isn’t a fair example as unlike Doctor Who, it doesn’t have any presence in home media and merchandising etc. Also Who obviously can as it has during the last 5 years. I never said I expect Jodie's tenure to sustain high figures throughout. Obviously, I can't know that. And even with that extra profit, Who is still at the mercy of the domestic UK audience by the very machinery that funds it in the first place: the licence fee payer. If they ain't watching, overnight, on-demand or iplayer, the BBC has no grounds to keep making it. All that merch and foreign sales is nice, but it's gravy: it's not what dictates if Who gets another season. The BBC simply doesn't work that way: it's not Hasbro or Disney.
And obviously Who couldn't if it had to resort to a controversial gamble like a female Doctor, or even smaller details like ditching arcs or not using classic monsters for a series: if Capaldi did 'fine' to BBC execs, they'd have cast Kris Marshall or another white male actor and just gone, business as normal and 13 would've fought Daleks by now. However much many of us love Capaldi, including myself, it does his era no favours either if we start ignoring the facts.
Fair enough, I probably didn’t come off as clear as I would have liked. I agree with your points on its marketability in the uk being important, and I can’t claim to know much about it so apologies. I think my fault is assuming that the BBC works the same way as other production companies etc. Secondly I think in regards to Capaldi and Whittaker, I think that they are both great and wonderful, but I do think that the BBC did think that Capaldi was good etc. because they and Chibnall made an offer for him to continue into series 11. I do think that they leapt at the opportunity to cast a female doctor afterwards as they saw a huge market, not because of Capaldi. I think what I’m trying to say is that while Capaldi didn’t have the greatest numbers, the portrayal of his tenure being a failure and the reason a Female Doctor was cast is not only taking away from Capaldi and Moffet etc. But also of Jodie and Chibnall. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Nov 2, 2018 12:52:13 GMT
Forgive my lateness in coming in and commenting here... I avoid spoilers as best I can, plus: I'm not watching these right away as they go live. Then I'm letting the view sink in a bit before I seek out others comments... I'm only a little way into the comments about the show but I need to stop and write down my thoughts now before being influenced by the rest:
One comment was Tin Dog Podcast's comment about trying to aim for the USA market with this. I never for a moment thought this, and I'm an American!
Now, "fixing a mucked up timelime" is one of those sci-fi tropes, right? Often times combined with divergent realities - some time traveler finds themselves in one, realizes something is mucked up, and then rolls back to find the point of divergence and correct it. Here, at least, we find ourselves BEFORE the point of divergence. Some people didn't like the fact that some Alien Influence was to blame, but really, there was NO reason for Doctor and Company to get involved unless they suspected such a threat.
Now, I listen to the Benji and Nick show, even though I know NOTHING about nearly every show they talk about... that podcast is about decades-old cult television from the U.K. - mostly ones aimed at younger viewers. It has made me try to think back to such American shows that I remember watching from the late 70s to the early 90s along those lines. That ties into this discussion because two of those shows were about this sort of thing... Quantum Leap (naturally) and the early 80s series Voyagers! In both shows you had people trying to fix a glitch in history. I don't remember "alien intervention" ever being involved, but in both shows, the protagonists knew they were there to figure out and then fix something. (On Voyagers! they had some Vortex Manipulator, err, magic pocket-watch thingy that would flash red when history was off track, and on QL, well, Sam was rather stuck there until he got things sorted)
Now, unless the TARDIS now has such a magic red light, there would be no reason for our TARDIS Team to get involved in the way they did unless they had another way to detect that history was about to go off-course.
So they went with the old Meddling Monk route. I rather liked the subtle nudge/counter-nudge nature of the game they played while staying out of Rosa's path, who was wonderfully played with a quiet dignity. Would I have liked it more if it had been caused some other recurring foe from the past? It might have given them a bit more depth - we never really know what this dude's motivation was beyond some form of racism. But Chibnall said he wasn't going with recurring elements (beyond the Blue Box I guess) so what they did was OK.
My reservations come from the overall series: where did they eat? How did they pay for things like bus fares and repairs to the coat?
I often flash back to that scene in Back to the Future II when Doc opens a briefcase full of money clearly marked with what year they were appropriate for. The Doctor needs to show something like this - at least once - to establish it, and then leave it be.
Oh, back to the Tin Dog Podcast - Michael is about the same age as myself but other than that, there is little in common between us other than our liking DW, our backgrounds and vocations are worlds apart, but I usually am totally on the same page as he is. He may think and state things that only were in the back of my head but once stated I'm often like, "yeah exactly, man!" He did throw in an offhand comment about the Time Rotor of the TARDIS looking dodgy with a giant crystal wedged in it. I thought much the same, but at the time I saw it, my thought was also "well, at least it's back to going up and down".
==========
Okay, just read the last five or six pages of this thread. Of course I was not the only one to bring up Quantum Leap (I'd have been shocked I was wasn't! Now, Voyagers!...well, that was a series that I think only lasted one season, I've never seen it since it aired and beyond one event in one episode I've not thought about it since then - this is probably the kind of equivalent show to the ones I'm hearing Clifford and Briggs discuss!)
Ratings Talk: I normally don't care, just so long as it's enough for the Beeb to continue making them. However I have to wonder - when I buy the Season (Series) on Amazon, does that actually count as a "ratings view" for each episode in someone's tally? Or do I need to actually access and watch the show (I only did so several days after airdate) But how much does such non-UK views even matter to the BBC?
End Title Music: not bothered that they changed it but would have rather had it not a reprise, some other appropriate era-appropriate tune would have been better.
|
|
|
Post by aemiliapaula on Nov 3, 2018 6:34:51 GMT
Voyagers! I loved that show. The gizmo was called the Omni, when the Golden Compass came out it reminded me of it.
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Nov 3, 2018 13:20:50 GMT
You have a better memory than I, okay, it was an Omni then. Hah - well I haven't seen it in like 35 years right! okay, the "remembered scene" I referenced above, it was a scenario in Voyagers! that I still remember fairly well, I think they encountered Tom Edison who dismantled their Omni, it was shown laid out dismantled into dozens of pieces, he was trying to figure out how the flashing red light worked, who then stated something like "Don't Touch Anything! I won't be able to put it back together unless you leave it as I laid it out upon dismantling!" and, of course, he did put it back together and it worked again.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 6, 2018 13:00:20 GMT
Final figure for this episode is 8.36 million. It's amazing to see the series getting these sort of numbers again after years of convincing ourselves that 5-6 was good enough all things considered. Actually current Total (with + 7 Days views numbers added)
8.41 Million
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Nov 6, 2018 18:17:55 GMT
Final figure for this episode is 8.36 million. It's amazing to see the series getting these sort of numbers again after years of convincing ourselves that 5-6 was good enough all things considered. Actually current Total (with + 7 Days views numbers added)
8.41 Million
Regards
mark687
Where are you getting those figures from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2018 18:39:50 GMT
Actually current Total (with + 7 Days views numbers added)
8.41 Million
Regards
mark687
Where are you getting those figures from? BARB, I’d imagine.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Nov 6, 2018 19:43:07 GMT
Programme Channel Broadcaster group TV set PC/laptop Tablet Smartphone TOTAL DOCTOR WHO (SUN 18:55) BBC 1 (inc HD) BBC 8,088,000 176,398 82,393 63,497 8,410,288
Although, I don't understand why PC/laptop, Tablet and Smartphone aren't under Iplayer? Anyone able to explain?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 6, 2018 20:43:22 GMT
Where are you getting those figures from? BARB, I’d imagine. Former Editor Of DWM Twitter Account (They're getting them from BARB)
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Nov 7, 2018 5:08:08 GMT
Programme Channel Broadcaster group TV set PC/laptop Tablet Smartphone TOTAL DOCTOR WHO (SUN 18:55) BBC 1 (inc HD) BBC 8,088,000 176,398 82,393 63,497 8,410,288 Although, I don't understand why PC/laptop, Tablet and Smartphone aren't under Iplayer? Anyone able to explain? Well, I'm a PC viewer and I don't have any kind of i-device. I've asked before as to just if/how/when my prepaid season on Amazon Video add to this sort of tally. But that question ties into international ratings, as I'm certainly not in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 26, 2018 16:13:22 GMT
Viewing Figures after 28 Days
9 Million
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 28, 2018 15:52:44 GMT
Public disinterest, my foot. A show that does not resonate with people does not inspire reactions such as these. Good on the kid.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 18, 2018 21:03:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Jan 4, 2019 21:51:03 GMT
Just saw this. Nice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:09:11 GMT
|
|