|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 14:21:12 GMT
But we need to communicate to the BBC publically through online comments that in this scenario any negativity is not because the first female Doctor is not working. That's why it is vital for the first series at least that we all at the bare minimum point out one positive thing even if we hate an episode. The last thing that needs to happen is the press seeing any totally negative comments and calling the first female Doctor 'a disaster'. No. Just no, so totally no, no, no and NO! Your suggesting we give positive feedback regardless of what we actually think, in other words you are telling us to lie in order to pursue a political end. Watch the show, give genuine feedback about the show. No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 14:21:47 GMT
And that's the problem nobody can be absolutely sure it will work and that's the trouble this time they'll have a ready excuse ( to be clear I hope it will be good) and swapping back to a man would be considered the easiest way to fix it.
Regards
mark687
But we need to communicate to the BBC publically through online comments that in this scenario any negativity is not because the first female Doctor is not working. That's why it is vital for the first series at least that we all at the bare minimum point out one positive thing even if we hate an episode. The last thing that needs to happen is the press seeing any totally negative comments and calling the first female Doctor 'a disaster'. But as Jason said its not the BBC that needs appealing too/ courting its the Press, if they don't like it they'll put negative headlines on it (but Chibnail doesn't court the Press).
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 14:23:08 GMT
It's almost like your saying that the popular press isn't reactionary. I'm not going to argue with you on this point, I'm just going to say if Jodie's doctor is judged a failure, of course she would be replaced, whether that judgement is right or wrong. The BBC is under a lot of scrutiny. If they replaced the first female Doctor they would be heavily criticised of sexism, and it would possibly lead to the down-fall of the BBC. The government would certainly make things harder for them. You live in a different world to me Dalek, in my world this isn't how things work.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 14:26:47 GMT
No. Just no, so totally no, no, no and NO! Your suggesting we give positive feedback regardless of what we actually think, in other words you are telling us to lie in order to pursue a political end. Watch the show, give genuine feedback about the show. No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure. Why? Look I have no intention to be posting negative comments if the show doesn't deserve them, and I'm hoping it doesn't. But equally I'm not going to post a positive comment if the show doesn't deserve them. I will call it the way I see it, and I hope everyone does that. Genuine feedback, good or bad, is always going to be better for the show (and in life in general) than feedback designed to flatter (a nice word for the less nice word deceive).
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 14:31:23 GMT
Slightly off topic in recent interviews Moffatt has dismissed low ratings as an absolute balderdash thing to worry about "it still sells very well in the worldwide market". Regards mark687 What he says is true. However, that's exactly what they said during the mid-1980s when Colin's second series was put of hiatus for 18 months. Not that I would argue with Mr Moffat, but the BBC has to be seen to be providing programming that is popular in the UK first and foremost. But Colin's break was due the fact that Grade hated the show and had a strained relationship with its star and producer so business sense seemly went out the window.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 14:37:04 GMT
What he says is true. However, that's exactly what they said during the mid-1980s when Colin's second series was put of hiatus for 18 months. Not that I would argue with Mr Moffat, but the BBC has to be seen to be providing programming that is popular in the UK first and foremost. But Colin's break was due the fact that Grade hated the show and had a strained relationship with its star and producer so business sense seemly went out the window.
Regards
mark687
Yes, all those things, although Grade was not alone, he was just the banner carrier for those that wanted to do down Who and unfortunately he also had the power. However, unless BBC Worldwide were to take over Who, The BBC have to justify making Who within the confines of it's charter and the competing things they do to fulfill on that charter, and not based on commercial success or world wide demand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 14:40:27 GMT
What he says is true. However, that's exactly what they said during the mid-1980s when Colin's second series was put of hiatus for 18 months. Not that I would argue with Mr Moffat, but the BBC has to be seen to be providing programming that is popular in the UK first and foremost. But Colin's break was due the fact that Grade hated the show and had a strained relationship with its star and producer so business sense seemly went out the window.
Regards
mark687
Well, that's one of the explanations offered. But the show wasn't as liked as it had been, outside of Grade's shadow and the ratings reflected this. Also, as far as I'm aware, overseas sales were still at the same level during Sylv's time, and the show still got canned. Certainly not saying I agreed with the decision, and that politics weren't involved, but as I see it, the show's overseas sales don't guarantee continuation as much as the audience in the UK - at least while Doctor Who remains a BBC production.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 9, 2017 14:40:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Dec 9, 2017 14:42:06 GMT
But Colin's break was due the fact that Grade hated the show and had a strained relationship with its star and producer so business sense seemly went out the window.
Regards
mark687
Well, that's one of the explanations offered. But the show wasn't as liked as it had been, outside of Grade's shadow and the ratings reflected this. Also, as far as I'm aware, overseas sales were still at the same level during Sylv's time, and the show still got canned. Certainly not saying I agreed with the decision, and that politics weren't involved, but as I see it, the show's overseas sales don't guarantee continuation as much as the audience in the UK - at least while Doctor Who remains a BBC production. As Jason pointed, the BBC are a domestic broadcaster. How well the show does abroad is not their priority (frankly, there's a bit of legal iffiness if the Beeb should even be selling their content abroad, cuase license fee payers).
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 14:45:53 GMT
But Colin's break was due the fact that Grade hated the show and had a strained relationship with its star and producer so business sense seemly went out the window.
Regards
mark687
Yes, all those things, although Grade was not alone, he was just the banner carrier for those that wanted to do down Who and unfortunately he also had the power. However, unless BBC Worldwide were to take over Who, The BBC have to justify making Who within the confines of it's charter and the competing things they do to fulfill on that charter, and not based on commercial success or world wide demand. I really think Worldwide have taken it over, the ethos is changing to making quality programme with a profitable return, with impartiality, and making up the funding gap left by a flat rate Licence Fee.
In fact I'm closer to their mission statement then I thought I was
www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us/who-we-are/
And the show is a Brand
www.bbcworldwide.com/how-we-operate/brands/
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by doomlord on Dec 9, 2017 15:07:59 GMT
No. Just no, so totally no, no, no and NO! Your suggesting we give positive feedback regardless of what we actually think, in other words you are telling us to lie in order to pursue a political end. Watch the show, give genuine feedback about the show. No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure. Important we all say at least one thing we enjoyed from every episode of Series 11? So you’d be satisfied if the majority of episodes went like this in showing it’s not a complete failure as it has at least two positive things about it? Acting - amateurish Writing - mess Directing - rubbish Music - awful Lighting - could have been better Make-up - fantastic Costume design - not the best Set design - good
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Dec 9, 2017 15:29:59 GMT
I would point out that there's already been a lot of negativity. Even the 'positive' reactions weren't actually all that great - lots of people saying "hooray for a woman, any old woman, it doesn't matter which" and very few saying "hooray, it's this particular woman".
Anyway, it's interesting that people are so concerned that Jodie Whittaker might kill the show when in recent years one of the complaints people have had about the Moffat era is that the show has been too focused on the regular characters, and not on (say) the villains. What will kill the show is if this continues and there isn't anything else in the programme to enjoy other than the Doctor and the companions. Surely the concern is not whether Whittaker is bad or if Chibnail is bad, so much as what if *both* are? Even if audiences are low, so long as the reviews are good they will have no excuse to bring in a new Doctor. But if the scripts are bad they will have an excuse to cancel "Doctor Who" altogether.
|
|
|
Post by nudge on Dec 9, 2017 15:33:12 GMT
First off, I don’t mean the people are dead set against a female doctor, I mean the people who watch the new series with open mindedness and end up not liking it. Because, honestly, I’m more and more worried that anyone with a less than stellar review of Series 11 will be marked as sexist, misogynistic etc. whether or not they are being so. What are people’s thoughts on this. Best way to handle other people’s opinion is to ignore/avoid reading it - the only one that matters is our own. The viewing figures are the only measurable indicator to ascertain its success, not comments aired over the Internet. Don’t give a monkeys what other people think, if it entertains me I’ll watch more, or if not I’ll stop.
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on Dec 9, 2017 15:33:29 GMT
No, I'm saying give at least one piece of positive feedback. Being negative is fine, but it is important that we all state at least one thing we enjoyed from every S11 episode so the first female Doctor cannot possibly be seen as a failure. Important we all say at least one thing we enjoyed from every episode of Series 11? So you’d be satisfied if the majority of episodes went like this in showing it’s not a complete failure as it has at least two positive things about it? Acting - amateurish Writing - mess Directing - rubbish Music - awful Lighting - could have been better Make-up - fantastic Costume design - not the best Set design - good So, it'll be her lippy that saves the show?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 15:38:00 GMT
First off, I don’t mean the people are dead set against a female doctor, I mean the people who watch the new series with open mindedness and end up not liking it. Because, honestly, I’m more and more worried that anyone with a less than stellar review of Series 11 will be marked as sexist, misogynistic etc. whether or not they are being so. What are people’s thoughts on this. Best way to handle other people’s opinion is to ignore/avoid reading it - the only one that matters is our own. The viewing figures are the only measurable indicator to ascertain its success, not comments aired over the Internet. Don’t give a monkeys what other people think, if it entertains me I’ll watch more, or if not I’ll stop. Sounds entirely reasonable to me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 15:43:53 GMT
It's almost like your saying that the popular press isn't reactionary. I'm not going to argue with you on this point, I'm just going to say if Jodie's doctor is judged a failure, of course she would be replaced, whether that judgement is right or wrong. The BBC is under a lot of scrutiny. If they replaced the first female Doctor they would be heavily criticised of sexism, and it would possibly lead to the down-fall of the BBC. The government would certainly make things harder for them. The replacement of a female Doctor could lead to the downfall of the BBC! I'm sorry but that is such an alarmist comment & quite frankly ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 15:46:23 GMT
First off, I don’t mean the people are dead set against a female doctor, I mean the people who watch the new series with open mindedness and end up not liking it. Because, honestly, I’m more and more worried that anyone with a less than stellar review of Series 11 will be marked as sexist, misogynistic etc. whether or not they are being so. What are people’s thoughts on this. Best way to handle other people’s opinion is to ignore/avoid reading it - the only one that matters is our own. The viewing figures are the only measurable indicator to ascertain its success, not comments aired over the Internet. Don’t give a monkeys what other people think, if it entertains me I’ll watch more, or if not I’ll stop. Common sense at last!
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Dec 9, 2017 15:47:19 GMT
It's almost like your saying that the popular press isn't reactionary. I'm not going to argue with you on this point, I'm just going to say if Jodie's doctor is judged a failure, of course she would be replaced, whether that judgement is right or wrong. The BBC is under a lot of scrutiny. If they replaced the first female Doctor they would be heavily criticised of sexism, and it would possibly lead to the down-fall of the BBC. The government would certainly make things harder for them. I think DW's low on the Government's list of corcerns ATM
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 9, 2017 15:53:44 GMT
But we need to communicate to the BBC publically through online comments that in this scenario any negativity is not because the first female Doctor is not working. That's why it is vital for the first series at least that we all at the bare minimum point out one positive thing even if we hate an episode. The last thing that needs to happen is the press seeing any totally negative comments and calling the first female Doctor 'a disaster'. But as Jason said its not the BBC that needs appealing too/ courting its the Press, if they don't like it they'll put negative headlines on it (but Chibnail doesn't court the Press).
Regards
mark687
But where do the press get negative headlines from? Us.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Dec 9, 2017 15:56:49 GMT
Yes, all those things, although Grade was not alone, he was just the banner carrier for those that wanted to do down Who and unfortunately he also had the power. However, unless BBC Worldwide were to take over Who, The BBC have to justify making Who within the confines of it's charter and the competing things they do to fulfill on that charter, and not based on commercial success or world wide demand. I really think Worldwide have taken it over, the ethos is changing to making quality programme with a profitable return, with impartiality, and making up the funding gap left by a flat rate Licence Fee.
In fact I'm closer to their mission statement then I thought I was
www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us/who-we-are/
And the show is a Brand
www.bbcworldwide.com/how-we-operate/brands/
Regards
mark687
You have the tail wagging the dog. Not only does the BBC have to shape itself around the Charter, it's also larger than BBC worldwide in terms of revenue, spending and staff. BBC Worldwide do not dictate to the BBC, if they did the very existence of the BBC would be under threat as it would totally undermine the Charter and the legal basis on which the BBC exists. Your point about brands... I don't get it at all, yes, there are lots of BBC Worldwide brands, including many that have nothing at all to do with the BBC, a brand is just a recognisable name, with some legal protections against others exploiting that name. I'm sure that should the BBC want to cancel Who for some reason, that BBC Worldwide would look to have someone else, perhaps even themselves, make it instead, but there is no reason to assume that they would be successful.
|
|