Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 15:03:23 GMT
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
According to wiki, it's a voluntary opt-in poll scheme like YouGov. As I say I get the BBC Worldwide poll every week on the show, and it asks for scores, and feedback so there's various ways they find out what viewers think. There's nothing to suggest anyone being polled hasn't watched though, and nothing to suggest the pollees are not regular watchers, or vice-versa that the higher AIs in the Tennant and Smith eras were due to polling more regular viewers.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Nov 15, 2018 17:01:23 GMT
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
It's bound to be tied into the selected BARB users. BARB would have a record of who watched regardless of target audience.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Nov 15, 2018 18:33:01 GMT
Ive somehow managed to be drawn into an argument about this episode online.
I commented that it was a dark moment in British History and a guy commented saying No it wasnt it was those Muslims. And its made me so angry
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 19:03:38 GMT
Ive somehow managed to be drawn into an argument about this episode online. I commented that it was a dark moment in British History and a guy commented saying No it wasnt it was those Muslims. And its made me so angry Don't engage scummy fundamentalists like that. You won't change them one iota and you'll just get mad. If you see any incitement or hate speech, report it to the authorities. Fuds like Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing hard time for their hatred and incitement these days, like the couple this week who were jailed and had a kid named after Hitler and full KKK robes. No-ones talking trash like that round with well reasoned debate.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Nov 15, 2018 19:26:44 GMT
Ive somehow managed to be drawn into an argument about this episode online. I commented that it was a dark moment in British History and a guy commented saying No it wasnt it was those Muslims. And its made me so angry Don't engage scummy fundamentalists like that. You won't change them one iota and you'll just get mad. If you see any incitement or hate speech, report it to the authorities. Fuds like Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing hard time for their hatred and incitement these days, like the couple this week who were jailed and had a kid named after Hitler and full KKK robes. No-ones talking trash like that round with well reasoned debate. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by kinghumble on Nov 15, 2018 23:16:55 GMT
Ive somehow managed to be drawn into an argument about this episode online. I commented that it was a dark moment in British History and a guy commented saying No it wasnt it was those Muslims. And its made me so angry Don't engage scummy fundamentalists like that. You won't change them one iota and you'll just get mad. If you see any incitement or hate speech, report it to the authorities. Fuds like Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing hard time for their hatred and incitement these days, like the couple this week who were jailed and had a kid named after Hitler and full KKK robes. No-ones talking trash like that round with well reasoned debate. I agree - but do make fun of them. Constantly. Unceasingly. Insult them with creative intelligent humour. It's the most effective response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 23:25:25 GMT
Don't engage scummy fundamentalists like that. You won't change them one iota and you'll just get mad. If you see any incitement or hate speech, report it to the authorities. Fuds like Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing hard time for their hatred and incitement these days, like the couple this week who were jailed and had a kid named after Hitler and full KKK robes. No-ones talking trash like that round with well reasoned debate. Agreed. Yuppers. Stick with us, we're way more fun and we appreciate the nuance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 23:58:54 GMT
Don't engage scummy fundamentalists like that. You won't change them one iota and you'll just get mad. If you see any incitement or hate speech, report it to the authorities. Fuds like Tommy Robinson and his ilk are doing hard time for their hatred and incitement these days, like the couple this week who were jailed and had a kid named after Hitler and full KKK robes. No-ones talking trash like that round with well reasoned debate. I agree - but do make fun of them. Constantly. Unceasingly. Insult them with creative intelligent humour. It's the most effective response. I used to think that....but we all laughed at Nigel Farage trying to get the UK out the EU. Not laughing now. We all laughed at a bad reality TV billionaire thinking he could possibly win the White House. Not laughing now. I feel like the people we've been making fun of got kinda sick of it and actually decided to get out and change things. They're not interested in debate or creative intelligent humour. They just want to be listened to....and we see where we end up when they do: 2018. I'm almost entirely of the opinion that leaving them alone is the only way, you mock them and they band together and...again: 2018.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 16, 2018 0:36:12 GMT
I used to think that....but we all laughed at Nigel Farage trying to get the UK out the EU. Not laughing now. We all laughed at a bad reality TV billionaire thinking he could possibly win the White House. Not laughing now. I feel like the people we've been making fun of got kinda sick of it and actually decided to get out and change things. They're not interested in debate or creative intelligent humour. They just want to be listened to. Oh don't worry: there's still plenty who's idea of productive change is to cry in Youtube videos with garish thumbnails. I won't name the individual (though I'm sure anyone semi-familiar with Youtube Who content will guess) but it really takes some gymnastics to take an episode about the real hatred and division in Pakistan and India, and somehow make it all about you you you, bloody you (and still complaining about the BBC's Diversity quota, because relevance, even though the one 'African hiring' controversy and that fired radio DJ were two, going on three years, ago).
React videos may be a whole lot of nothing, but at least inoffensive guys like Torchwood Boy and LiamCatterson get to ride the intial traffic and keep idiots like that buried further down in seraches.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Nov 16, 2018 10:36:03 GMT
Ive somehow managed to be drawn into an argument about this episode online. I commented that it was a dark moment in British History and a guy commented saying No it wasnt it was those Muslims. And its made me so angry Such people are best ignored - we are far more worthy of your screen time on here. It was a dark moment in British history - "cut and run" done hastily by a country bankrupt after WWII - and partition timed to take place after independence, which shifted the impossible responsibility for managing it onto the two newly-formed governments. But PM Attlee had supported a united independent India for decades and that was his intention as PM and the instructions he gave. He did not want partition - nor inititally did Mountbatten - but they became persuaded it was unavoidable and were afraid of becoming involved in a civil war if they delayed.
It was sadly also a very dark moment for sectarianism in India - 'Demons' does show this with references to the local politics of division which some had followed. Partition was agreed between the various nationalist leaders (though some always opposed partition and wanted all peoples to live together as one independent nation.) But as I understand it, it seems nobody ever intended the large-scale population movements, let alone imagining the horrifying violence that would take place between people on both sides, people who had lived together mostly in peace for many many years.
As an outsider it's incomprehensible, but part of the problem was the British authorities were outsiders meddling in other peoples' lives and they clearly didn't properly comprehend the implications of what they were doing. But goodness knows we've seen similiar sectarian horrors erupt in Europe down the centuries and it makes me think of what happened most recently in the former Yugoslavia, when Tito died and the controlling power which had suppressed everyone else was suddenly removed.
A thought-provoking, magnificent episode. I wonder if the low AI was because many younger viewers didn't feel a connection with a period they haven't been taught about? But as we know, historicals were unfortunately never as popular in the Hartnell era either, so it's not all that surprising.
|
|
|
Post by kinghumble on Nov 16, 2018 23:35:49 GMT
I agree - but do make fun of them. Constantly. Unceasingly. Insult them with creative intelligent humour. It's the most effective response. I used to think that....but we all laughed at Nigel Farage trying to get the UK out the EU. Not laughing now. We all laughed at a bad reality TV billionaire thinking he could possibly win the White House. Not laughing now. I feel like the people we've been making fun of got kinda sick of it and actually decided to get out and change things. They're not interested in debate or creative intelligent humour. They just want to be listened to....and we see where we end up when they do: 2018. I'm almost entirely of the opinion that leaving them alone is the only way, you mock them and they band together and...again: 2018. Maybe... I certainly can't disprove your thoughts that a failure to seriously consider deplorable opinions caused the people who held them to band together, but i think the political tragedies of 2016-18 are far more related to social stress, unaddressed systemic flaws in democratic systems, unaddressed political corruptions, unaddressed economic disparities, opioid addictions and general fear of social evolution moreso than to outrage at being mocked.
I warned people that Trump's chances of getting into the White House were higher than generally believed, even as I mocked him and his supporters (though i'm no political sage, I called Brexit wrong, and also the election of Canada's hollow-headed hypocrite, Justin Trudeau) so I see no connection between my choice to mock and any failure to appreciate the gravity of the threat. The danger of an idea heightens the need to point out it's absurdity, I believe. Trump and his supporters take strength from being taken seriously, and they are also emboldened by having their bullshit ignored. I firmly believe that (paraphrasing DaVinci) to ignore evil is to command (or at least to enable) it to be done. In lieu of anything better, I've found my sense of humour my most effective tool for getting neo-cons to second-guess themselves, or at least refine their views. This video i watched the other day sort-of reflects what i'm talking about...
...but before I wrap up my argument, I want to acknowledge that for all my faith in the power of humour, it certainly isn't a magic bullet. If these scum were capable of being persuaded by rational arguments, that would certainly be preferable. Or if there were a more powerful way to persuade them to rethink their flawed beliefs than shaming them with humour, that'd be phenomenal. But I don't know of any, and I find it's not in my nature to ignore bullshit, so humour is what I am left to rely on
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Nov 17, 2018 0:30:06 GMT
Well, we ended up in an interesting place.
So... I liked the Tijarian designs. Has strong Asian and Hindu nods in there, a little warthog too. Also, their robes make me think of the shinigami from Death Note.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 1:21:13 GMT
Well, we ended up in an interesting place. So... I liked the Tijarian designs. Has strong Asian and Hindu nods in there, a little warthog too. Also, their robes make me think of the shinigami from Death Note. A shinigami is very apropos given their past and present behaviour. I've kind of fallen in love with these designs, to be honest. Eyes are so difficult to realise without making them seem flat or dead, but they've got a really nice sense of depth to them here. They feel like they're studying you. The armour looks as though there's meaning behind each part of it, like Thirteen's own outfit, The red-and-black sigils, in particular, are rather eye-catching. I also like how whether they're lurking in the dark or out in the sun, the whole ensemble still holds up. You still get a sense of what these people are about.
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Nov 17, 2018 15:13:40 GMT
Finally watched this one. Events kept popping up to delay viewing this week.
Very good episode. I had my reservations in the very beginning when it seemed they were going to be leaning on sitcom tropes (Surprise! He's the groom!), but they move past that quickly and the story finds its stride.
Here in the United States, we have a very superficial education regarding history that's not our own. I was almost entirely ignorant of the Partition, but since the episode focused on the human element I found it accessible and had no difficulty following it.
As others have observed, it could have even worked as a pure historical. Faces with too many eyes really make me uncomfortable on a visceral level, so I would not have objected to the removal of the Thijarians.
I didn't have the problem with the Doctor as an observer. That's what she was there to do. In fact, I like a Doctor who will intervene if circumstances require, but will let things take their course or allow the locals to fix their problems if that's what is required.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Nov 19, 2018 14:31:09 GMT
7 Day Viewing Figures
7.4 Million
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by J.A. Prentice on Nov 19, 2018 20:49:13 GMT
Oh, hey, I never commented on this episode. (Or I can't see a comment, at least.) Which is funny, because I think it was the best one. It was a great decision to show how one family was torn apart by Partition instead of trying to do some big picture or celebrity history story. The Thijarians were a wonderful idea and I loved their design. I gave it a 5/5 on here (9/10 on my " podcast"). Excellent first story from Vinay Patel and I hope we see something from him again.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 3, 2018 20:26:41 GMT
Confirmed 28 Day Viewing Figures
7.9 Million
Regards
mark687
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 20:43:09 GMT
28 Day Viewing Figures 7.8 Million Regards mark687 Punjab was only 3 weeks ago. Isn't it Tsurunga Conundrum that's got it's +28s ready?
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 3, 2018 20:51:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 20:57:10 GMT
Well, I know who publishes ratings - what I'm asking is...how can the 28 day consolidated figure be published when it's only 22 days after broadcast? Do they project them?
|
|