|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Nov 13, 2018 22:14:28 GMT
Gosh. It sure seems like people enjoyed Demons of the Punjab.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Nov 14, 2018 1:19:36 GMT
Gosh. It sure seems like people enjoyed Demons of the Punjab. What's not to like? Watching again, I agree that Nani - somehow - had worked out that the people she met in the the Punjab in 1947 included her own granddaughter, and gave her the watch to start her off completing the loop. But how did she know for sure, would she really have remembered Yas so definitely from two traumatic days 60 years before and not thought it was perhaps a chance resemblance? My theory: Yas' mum and dad had told her about the group of friends who turned up at their flat with Yas during the spider epidemic. Nani remembered the exact same four people from the last time that "monsters" crossed her family's life, put two-and-two together to deduce the apparently impossible and... the rest was, and is, History. I too noticed the regular mentions of enticing-sounding stories we haven't seen - it's very 'Sherlock Holmes' isn't it? Many of the short stories open with Watson mentioning one or two other amazing adventures he can't tell us about right now, but maybe one day... All that material being stored up for BF in a few years time or more likely there will be some books appearing soon to fill in the flagged-up gaps. One more thing I really like about this year's series is the regular 'real science' moment. This week the Doctor lost the use of her sonic for a while (' and there was much rejoicing...' ) so to try to analyse the contents of the Thijarians' casket she built a chromatography apparatus out of household equipment! And the 'ox-spit and chicken poo' were respectively the alkaline and acidic reagents she needed. I wish they had put in one or two more lines to highlight this, but great idea!
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Nov 14, 2018 3:40:41 GMT
I actually forgot Doctor Who was on 🤪so i missed it the dangers of a new time slots
|
|
|
Post by eric009 on Nov 14, 2018 4:02:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Nov 14, 2018 9:54:48 GMT
Gosh. It sure seems like people enjoyed Demons of the Punjab. What's not to like? Watching again, I agree that Nani - somehow - had worked out that the people she met in the the Punjab in 1947 included her own granddaughter, and gave her the watch to start her off completing the loop. But how did she know for sure, would she really have remembered Yas so definitely from two traumatic days 60 years before and not thought it was perhaps a chance resemblance? My theory: Yas' mum and dad had told her about the group of friends who turned up at their flat with Yas during the spider epidemic. Nani remembered the exact same four people from the last time that "monsters" crossed her family's life, put two-and-two together to deduce the apparently impossible and... the rest was, and is, History. I too noticed the regular mentions of enticing-sounding stories we haven't seen - it's very 'Sherlock Holmes' isn't it? Many of the short stories open with Watson mentioning one or two other amazing adventures he can't tell us about right now, but maybe one day... All that material being stored up for BF in a few years time or more likely there will be some books appearing soon to fill in the flagged-up gaps. One more thing I really like about this year's series is the regular 'real science' moment. This week the Doctor lost the use of her sonic for a while (' and there was much rejoicing...' ) so to try to analyse the contents of the Thijarians' casket she built a chromatography apparatus out of household equipment! And the 'ox-spit and chicken poo' were respectively the alkaline and acidic reagents she needed. I wish they had put in one or two more lines to highlight this, but great idea! I did not notice that the first time round. Certainly need to re-watch it and see if I can see this too!
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Nov 14, 2018 9:57:46 GMT
Is that a sarcastic news item? It certainly reads as a parody...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 10:10:31 GMT
Is that a sarcastic news item? It certainly reads as a parody... its the Sun it should never be read
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Nov 14, 2018 10:14:20 GMT
Is that a sarcastic news item? It certainly reads as a parody... its the Sun it should never be read Yeah I know. It is like the German "Bild" or the Austrian "Krone"... too crap to be even used as toilet paper...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 10:15:03 GMT
its the Sun it should never be read Yeah I know. It is like the German "Bild" or the Austrian "Krone"... too crap to be even used as toilet paper... sun is ideal as toilet paper
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,718
|
Post by shutupbanks on Nov 14, 2018 11:39:30 GMT
Yeah I know. It is like the German "Bild" or the Austrian "Krone"... too crap to be even used as toilet paper... sun is ideal as toilet paper Being used as toilet paper is somewhere where The Sun would shine.
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Nov 14, 2018 11:54:20 GMT
Is that a sarcastic news item? It certainly reads as a parody... Tbf The Sun is a parody of journalism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 14:32:54 GMT
Was it Innes Lloyd who stopped Doctor Who historicals with 1967's The Highlanders? Saying the sci-fi stories are far more successful? Commendable though Demons of the Punjab is, nicely played and beautifully photographed (and exceptionally scored as always), I found it pretty dull, to be honest. Profound sentiments and heartfelt dialogue don't make fascinating characters for me, I'm sorry to say. And I am sorry to say that. Some say the alien invaders were unnecessary, but it was only when the spectral Sycorax cousins turned up that there was any fizzle of excitement.
I'm glad Yaz is getting some character stuff at last, I like Ryan and Graham is my favourite. But why exactly has the Doctor chosen these people as travelling companions/friends? Does she see anything in them, or is it just that they were the first faces the new Doctor saw?
This series, for all its diversity, has settled into a pattern. It's good - very good on occasion - but it is never great. This Doctor's character seems purely her Yorkshire accent and its quirks. My experience with the 13th Doctor has verged from initial uncertainty (if I'm honest), to relief, to a kind of non-plussed acceptance. She's nice, she says so herself, but there seems to be little else. For all the Tenth Doctor's posturing and Matt's arm-flinging silliness, at least there was a gravitas there, a depth of character. This Doctor is symptomatic of this series as a whole for me - good but unspectacular.
Anyway, let's all go away and have a snigger at Sheffield, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 14, 2018 16:30:39 GMT
Do you think the new time slot will shave a million off Doctor Who's overnights next week? It would be a shame to see it drift into the four millions during the last few weeks of the series. It could go either way, though it is important to remember that overalls, not overnight, are how the Beeb measure success. So long as the 4s are not that, we'll be fine. The finale usually gets a boost, so it could easily finishes in the mid to high 7s.
Plus, this Sunday everyone got hit because of Remembrance: even Strictly didn't crack 9m.
And with all the talk of the Sun and Mail being the Sun and the Mail, I bumped my earlier post back up as a reminder. As long as 4 and 5 is not your voerall consolidated, Who will be fine. The much vaunted Tennant and early Smith years did get 6s and 7s as consolidated many times, and who was screaming 'failure' then? For sunday shows, those are perfetly respectable numbers.
Honestly, I feel way sorrier for the guys who made Little Drummer Girl: that just crashed in the ratings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 16:45:30 GMT
It could go either way, though it is important to remember that overalls, not overnight, are how the Beeb measure success. So long as the 4s are not that, we'll be fine. The finale usually gets a boost, so it could easily finishes in the mid to high 7s.
Plus, this Sunday everyone got hit because of Remembrance: even Strictly didn't crack 9m.
And with all the talk of the Sun and Mail being the Sun and the Mail, I bumped my earlier post back up as a reminder. As long as 4 and 5 is not your voerall consolidated, Who will be fine. The much vaunted Tennant and early Smith years did get 6s and 7s as consolidated many times, and who was screaming 'failure' then? For sunday shows, those are perfetly respectable numbers.
Honestly, I feel way sorrier for the guys who made Little Drummer Girl: that just crashed in the ratings.
Yes Le Carre he expects intelligence...it was probably too much for a couple of Million
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Nov 14, 2018 18:12:15 GMT
It could go either way, though it is important to remember that overalls, not overnight, are how the Beeb measure success. So long as the 4s are not that, we'll be fine. The finale usually gets a boost, so it could easily finishes in the mid to high 7s.
Plus, this Sunday everyone got hit because of Remembrance: even Strictly didn't crack 9m.
And with all the talk of the Sun and Mail being the Sun and the Mail, I bumped my earlier post back up as a reminder. As long as 4 and 5 is not your voerall consolidated, Who will be fine. The much vaunted Tennant and early Smith years did get 6s and 7s as consolidated many times, and who was screaming 'failure' then? For sunday shows, those are perfetly respectable numbers.
Honestly, I feel way sorrier for the guys who made Little Drummer Girl: that just crashed in the ratings.
And, you could always argue that catch up was in its infancy. Much more effusive on catch up, these days. Some BBC shows are only available on iPlayer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 13:05:14 GMT
AI score of 80, the second lowest of the series and one of the joint-lowest in all of New Who. Baffling to me but hey.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 15, 2018 13:31:03 GMT
AI score of 80, the second lowest of the series and one of the joint-lowest in all of New Who. Baffling to me but hey. Because its obviously a "Random" group that doesn't watch the show every week or a group that doesn't enjoy it which when given the viewing figures should be harder to find then its seeming.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Nov 15, 2018 14:04:12 GMT
AI score of 80, the second lowest of the series and one of the joint-lowest in all of New Who. Baffling to me but hey. Because its obviously a "Random" group that doesn't watch the show every week or a group that doesn't enjoy it which when given the viewing figures should be harder to find then its seeming.
Regards
mark687
Evidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 14:14:49 GMT
AI score of 80, the second lowest of the series and one of the joint-lowest in all of New Who. Baffling to me but hey. Because its obviously a "Random" group that doesn't watch the show every week or a group that doesn't enjoy it which when given the viewing figures should be harder to find then its seeming.
Regards
mark687
I'm not getting you, Mark, sorry. It's the same procedure, same sampling, as when Tennant and Smith got higher AIs and when Capaldi got lower than them. We accepted that - it's quite reflective of the common thought that Tennant and Smith were more popular Doctors with the public than Capaldi. Now the numbers are actually lower than at mid-point in all of Capaldi's seasons. How do you know the people watching now don't watch every week? And if so, how do you square that with the higher numbers in past years? Were people taking the surveys then more likely to watch every week? I don't see how we could know that. The audience are only asked to take the polls on what they've seen. We can't only respect stats when they prove what we want. The Beeb also send out their own research every Sunday, a few of us here get their polling invites. I send my responses each week. Clearly they want to know not just who watches but what they think, too. I don't know why the scores are lower. Maybe some are still not keen on the gender issue but then why have they watched for over a month? It's not concerning for me - fandom and the public are often out of step, and if the ratings maintain...things will be fine for the future. Yet it is still curious as to why they're low.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 15, 2018 14:28:14 GMT
Because its obviously a "Random" group that doesn't watch the show every week or a group that doesn't enjoy it which when given the viewing figures should be harder to find then its seeming.
Regards
mark687
I'm not getting you, Mark, sorry. It's the same procedure, same sampling, as when Tennant and Smith got higher AIs and when Capaldi got lower than them. We accepted that - it's quite reflective of the common thought that Tennant and Smith were more popular Doctors with the public than Capaldi. Now the numbers are actually lower than at mid-point in all of Capaldi's seasons. How do you know the people watching now don't watch every week? And if so, how do you square that with the higher numbers in past years? Were people taking the surveys then more likely to watch every week? I don't see how we could know that. The audience are only asked to take the polls on what they've seen. We can't only respect stats when they prove what we want. The Beeb also send out their own research every Sunday, a few of us here get their polling invites. I send my responses each week. Clearly they want to know not just who watches but what they think, too. I don't know why the scores are lower. Maybe some are still not keen on the gender issue but then why have they watched for over a month? It's not concerning for me - fandom and the public are often out of step, and if the ratings maintain...things will be fine for the future. Yet it is still curious as to why they're low. Actually I can't even find a comprehensible explanation of how they're worked out anyway, EDIT I think its its supposed to be a random sampling of the target audience though how they go about determining that sampling I've no clue, however. as you say, its supposed to be based on the fact they've Seen it.
Regards
mark687
|
|