Doctor Who Audience Figures

[SilentRoamer]

But the early doctors benefitted because there was -- give or take an anomaly with the first doctor (the first series, I think) -- no chance to see a programme after it had been on air, so viewers had no alternative but to watch if they ever wanted to see it.

This is a good point - I think the various forms of media available and the changing nature of digital content consumption make it difficult to contemporise any of the doctors - potentially even the new Who's given the rate of technological change. You make a fair point here and this probably makes any comparisons not as analogous as one would want.

Although that benefit only applies to the initial viewing bump (higher figure due to subsequent unavailability).

@SilentRoamer I would not take the audience figure on RT much in account as they were heavily compromised. Give a look over to certain internet places we shan't mention that organized intentional low score spam because *hurr durr female doctor hurr durr SJWs hurr durr minorities hurr durr propaganda hurr durr hates white males hurr durr oh you get the point*.

As long as the person reviewing actually watched the episode prior to the review then the review would be valid to me - someone is entitled to low score a review even if they did so because they don't like a female doctor or any other arbitrary reason I might disagree with - although I am not a fan of mass flag, mass spam, mass review calls from certain places as these invariably hurt the review integrity - I would be surprised if the entirety of the low ratings is due to this though.

@SilentRoamer You can look over majority of audience reviews and a lot of them are in that same vein. Most balanced reviews have it somewhere at a lukewarm score of 3/5 stars and I would put it somewhere there as well. It is a critical darling, but I think it had some serious flaws overall.

The reviews I have seen in general are majority mixed to negative and a lot of these are SFF channels I follow with reviews going back for most episode of New Who - so people with a vested interest in wanting it to succeed. A lot of these also have the same criticisms - poor writing, ancillary and unnecessary characters, heavy handed political messaging, whilst also being praised for the same things - visuals, music score, Bradley Walsh.

For me the biggest ratings problem would be the lack of uptick for the finale - almost all seasons see an uptick for the final episode. I think the New Years episode should give a good indication of the ratings progression as the the Daleks integrate into the new doctors tenure.

I think this also might prove that the Daleks have to be used at least once during every season in order to retain the rights to use them.

 

[Cathbad]

My take on the reviews I've seen on this season, not only here, but on major social media sites:

Dr. Who Fans: Mixed to hated it.
Sci-Fi Fans: Mixed.
New Dr. Who Viewers: Loved it!

 

[thaddeus6th]

Cathbad, if that's accurate, it sounds like long term fans are generally disappointed. New viewers drawn in by the smashing the glass ceiling nonsense (*cough*Ripley*cough) liking it is unsurprising, as they specifically started watching because that's what they wanted. It's like new Labour Party members being more pro-Corbyn than longer term members.

 

[Anthoney]

They need to dump the companions and get some new ones. They could keep Bradly Walsh but the other two have to go. Yaz had one good showing but I have a hard time even remembering the other guys name. I just remember the dyspraxia which was almost never seen after the first episode.

Even with the sex change she's closer to Peter Capaldi then Tom Baker was to Jon Pertwee.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Anthoney, yeah. I think a four man band could work [just] with either feature length episodes or serials, but it seems like there's not enough time (admittedly, I only watched the first two episodes, but still).

I'd dump the Doctor too. Well, the actress. Get Amanda Tapping in if they're desperate for a woman. If not, Richard Ayoade could be fantastically sarcastic.

 

[Brian G Turner]

From the way chrons discussions I've seen, Dr Who fans have been increasingly frustrated with the writing of the show. Simply flipping the gender of the Doctor isn't enough to overcome that, and surrounding her with 4 companions sounds like lack of confidence on the part of the production team that a woman Doctor is up to the job.

It was too much focus on companions previously - reducing the Doctor to a supporting role in his (her) on series - that caused a lot of frustration in the first place. By the sounds of it, the producers could be compounding the problem - but does anyone still watching it agree with that?

 

[Dave]

.

Richard Ayoade could be fantastically sarcastic.

Without going off topic (as other threads have discussed possible actors - I always thought Bill Nighy) but this is great suggestion that I've never heard before

 

[Narkalui]

@Brian G Turner Me! I liked Whittacre's acting and I thought that a trio of companions made a nice change, a bit like the episodes when Rory and Amy accompanied Matt Smith. But for me the writing was just utterly atrocious.

I say keep the cast but sack the writers!

 

[Cathbad]

Cathbad, if that's accurate, it sounds like long term fans are generally disappointed. New viewers drawn in by the smashing the glass ceiling nonsense (*cough*Ripley*cough) liking it is unsurprising, as they specifically started watching because that's what they wanted. It's like new Labour Party members being more pro-Corbyn than longer term members.

I don't know that it's "accurate"; it's merely my impression.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

It was too much focus on companions previously - reducing the Doctor to a supporting role in his (her) on series - that caused a lot of frustration in the first place. By the sounds of it, the producers could be compounding the problem - but does anyone still watching it agree with that?

Yes. That was, IMHO, the biggest issue ever since Matt Smith took on the mantle of the Doctor. While it was less obvious early on partially because Matt Smith was a very loud and in your face Doctor, it really escalated with Clara's latter seasons. It admittedly got better with Billy, but that is more because Billy was so forgettable so one can barely call that an improvement and even then, at moments she seemed to be getting a bigger focus. And then we got a much more in your face Missy that took a big chunk of those seasons as well.

With the new trio, it is just more pronounced because there are so many of them at all times and from the very start, before the Doctor ever managed to establish him/herself as a character and because the emotional core of the show has been mostly Graham. While the Graham part was not too distracting and would have been perfectly fine on its own, Yaz and WhatsHisName were too distracting and annoying, taking time and bringing very little to the table. Almost everything they were doing could have been delegated to some of the numerous guest stars. And the sheer number of guest stars that paraded through episodes compounded the issue.

I love Whittaker much as I loved Capaldi, but their great work is being overshadowed by the sheer amount of things around them. For Capaldi, the biggest take away was Clara's stupid drama which prevented the story from focusing on Doctor dealing with new life after making peace with death, to properly figure out who he is. For Whittaker, the biggest take away is too many people around her distracting all with their own titbits. She has a rather ungrateful job of trying to make the character her own and do something with it on very little time that is given to her. Furthermore, because everything has to be so fast-paced to accommodate absolutely everyone, nothing ever lands properly even though it should work given some bloody time (except for Graham dealing with Grace's death which was actually given time).

Doctor Who, Series 11 aka Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth. I don't know whose fault that is, but it is definitely the fault I see.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

As long as the person reviewing actually watched the episode prior to the review then the review would be valid to me - someone is entitled to low score a review even if they did so because they don't like a female doctor or any other arbitrary reason I might disagree with* - although I am not a fan of mass flag, mass spam, mass review calls from certain places as these invariably hurt the review integrity - I would be surprised if the entirety of the low ratings is due to this though.

I mention the nature of the reviews because IMO, it supports the hypothesis that there was a coordinated effort from certain places to downvote it which places a very big question mark on the very condition you set. If there is a mass call for action on a platform that is not dedicated to this fandom, but is very polarized on issues portrayed and was active in similar actions in the past, has everyone who answered the call truly watched the show before voting or have they just obeyed the call to action and did their part?

Just look at the sheer number of those reviews on this series. As a reference point, formerly most reviewed Doctor Who 2005 series on RT was Series 8 with Capaldi which had 62 pages and that was after everyone was a bit hyped because the reincarnation number rule was removed. Excepting that one, no other series before Series 11 ever reached 50 pages. Just to compare, Series 11 has, as of this very moment, 235 pages of reviews on RT.

I would not say it is entirely, but would say it is the reason it is that low on RT. There were calls for mass low votes on several places, especially after the "Trump episode".

*Also, I disagree with this, but that is not exactly relevant to the point I am making.

The reviews I have seen in general are majority mixed to negative and a lot of these are SFF channels I follow with reviews going back for most episode of New Who - so people with a vested interest in wanting it to succeed. A lot of these also have the same criticisms - poor writing, ancillary and unnecessary characters, heavy handed political messaging, whilst also being praised for the same things - visuals, music score, Bradley Walsh.

I am not talking about those numerous SFF channels. I am saying the RT score is worthless as an argument because there is strong reason to suspect it was heavily compromised as far as audience scores go.

And audience score encompasses more than just niche communities so that is irrelevant for RT audience score. IMHO, barring the mass votes, it would have had similar RT audience scores as Capaldi which would be, admittedly, too high for this season much as it was too high for Capaldi's seasons.

 

[AlexH]

From the way chrons discussions I've seen, Dr Who fans have been increasingly frustrated with the writing of the show. Simply flipping the gender of the Doctor isn't enough to overcome that, and surrounding her with 4 companions sounds like lack of confidence on the part of the production team that a woman Doctor is up to the job.

It was too much focus on companions previously - reducing the Doctor to a supporting role in his (her) on series - that caused a lot of frustration in the first place. By the sounds of it, the producers could be compounding the problem - but does anyone still watching it agree with that?

That's never been a problem for me - I just think the episodes haven't been as good in general. I enjoyed the Clara threads.

I thought the three companions was a good dynamic to start with in the recent series. It worked brilliantly in the Rosa Parks episode, but as the series went on, two companions were shoved out of the way all too often, seemingly because the writers couldn't think of anything to do with them. I also thought Rory, Amy and River Song worked excellently.

It's only one episode in isolation, but the Doctor hardly featured in my favourite episode (the original weeping angels).

 

[Dave]

This thread was started as a rebuttal of the assertion that audience figures were falling. There are plenty of other threads here (and what I really mean is all other threads) in which you can critique the current Season.

 

[SilentRoamer]

@Cathbad I think that is a good point regarding the viewer dynamics.

@Anushka Mokosh Some good points there and I broadly agree with you.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I'll try to keep this on track with viewing figures.

The viewing figures are in for the New Years Special and the figures don't look good. 5.15m overnight viewing figures the lowest for any Special of Dr Who since 2005. I havent seen consolidated figures yet.

With a 2020 wait until the next series I expect the ratings to continue to tumble into the new season. Indications from fans in general are they do not want more of the same and Chibnall is keen to keep up with the important political messaging (according to something he said in an interview).

It could be that the New Years episode had to be done in the New Year to fulfill contractual obligations to the Dalek estate but for me the Christmas specials were always something to look forward to - this could have arguably hurt the viewing figures.

Weirdly Rotten Tomatoes had a 100% Critical score for this episode for a long time - seems odd there is such a disparity between the expert critics and audience viewers, although it could be part of the polarization between the new and old Who fandoms.

 

[Anthoney]

I definitely think New Years instead of Christmas was a bit of a bungle. This whole 2020 crap will do more harm. After the mixed reception they needed to double down and get the show back on soon not hold it off.

 

[Cathbad]

Weirdly Rotten Tomatoes had a 100% Critical score for this episode for a long time - seems odd there is such a disparity between the expert critics and audience viewers, although it could be part of the polarization between the new and old Who fandoms.

I think you hit it on the disparity issue.

As for the NY Day episode.... meh. At least it had Daleks.

 

[Ashley R]

I think Jodi Whittaker has been excellent, the problem with this series (for me) is the same as the Capaldi era - to writing is absolutely awful. Add to that the weak production team that's been brought in and the fact that they don't believe in Whittaker - why else would they insist on three companions, one of them a bigger male star than Whittaker? The Xmas edition has added another 3 established names to the roster - they're trying to buy an audience with big stars.

Well, I will have to admit that I didn't know any of that, but I guess I'm not the sort of viewer that really takes note of the star value of any of the actors.

 

[Narkalui]

I've just finished rewatching the Capaldi episodes. Even the poorer episodes are far better than the stronger episodes from this last series

 

[Matteo]

Assuming the traditional "let's all sit down and watch tv" viewing experience, I would actually argue that Christmas Day is more hectic than New Year's Day and would so would expect higher figures for the latter. But those figures are considerably lower than others in this series so that's a real oddity.