Feelings Halfway Through The Series

[Jinn]

Seems appropriate the ratings are down. Oh! But they aren't..sure..sure..keep telling yourself that. But the consolidated Ratings are way up compared to Capaldi's last season! Hmmm..sure..sure..but they are exactly where Capaldi's were in his first season, so really whats the difference. The new season was supposed to be the reboot. Better ratings.

[...]

The new direction was supposed to raise ratings, not maintain it at its lower levels. Where are all these new fans that were supposed to return it to its glory? The premier was pretty much the only thing supporters of this new iteration point to constantly, but in the end, much like Star Trek STD, Disney Star Wars and such "modern" revamps, they suck.

So, the topic of ratings is an interesting one. Both in the philosophical "Why do we care about them" as well as in the pure numbers crunching way. So, since I'm too tired for philosophy I decided to crunch the numbers. I got the consolidated ratings for series 1-10 and the first six episodes of series 11 and calculated the average numbers of views per episode of each series. I decided to split series 6 and 7 into their automn and spring halves since they both had essentially second first episode, which seemed unfair to me. I also decided to only count episodes 2-5 of series 11 since you complained about people always using episode 1 to say that series 11 has better ratings than the other series.
So, here are the numbers:

Series 1 ---7.924615385
Series 2 ---7.638461538
Series 3 ---7.538461538
Series 4 ---8.040769231
Series 5 ---7.730769231
Series 6A ---7.66
Series 6B ---7.356666667
Series 7A ---7.962
Series 7B ---7.11625
Series 8 ---7.2625
Series 9 ---6.161538462
Series 10 ---5.454166667
Series 11 ---7.89

Sorted by numbers:

Series 4 ---8.040769231
Series 7A ---7.962
Series 1 ---7.924615385
Series 11 ---7.89
Series 5 ---7.730769231
Series 6A ---7.66
Series 2 ---7.638461538
Series 3 ---7.538461538
Series 6B ---7.356666667
Series 8 ---7.2625
Series 7B ---7.11625
Series 9 ---6.161538462
Series 10 ---5.454166667

So, Series 11 (minus it's strongest episode) beats out all of Capaldi's era, all except for half a series of Smith and the middle part of Davies' tenure as showrunner.

That being said I wouldn't go as far as saying that series 11 is widely more successful than the rest of Doctor Who. With the exception of series 9 and 10 all the series got between 7.1 and 8.1 million viewers, so it all seems pretty steady. However, when compared to the immediate predecessors Chibnall's era beats Moffat's, except for half a series. Of course we only have half a series from Chibnall, so this may very well change in the future.

Here's a screenshot of what my spreadsheet, for clarity's sake. My numbers are from themindrobber.co.uk which I hope is a decent source. I cross-checked some of their numbers with Wikipedia and another site and they were identical.


You may notice that the numbers got commas instead of dots, that's because I'm German and so is my Excel and in Germany we use dots and commas in reverse to how they're used in the US, so for example 8,7M is 8 million 700 thousand.

I may have very well miscalculated something here, so if something strikes you as odd please point it out.

I also included an average of views/episode of all series, all of them except series 11 and all of them except for series 9 and 10, just out of curiosity.

"Think like us or You're a baf horrible person!"

What's a baf?

 

[Refuge]

Wow! Post something outside of the norm, and get 5-6 responses of like minded Borgs. Too funny. Not a whit of individuality amongst the mob. Seems appropriate the ratings are down. Oh! But they aren't..sure..sure..keep telling yourself that. But the consolidated Ratings are way up compared to Capaldi's last season! Hmmm..sure..sure..but they are exactly where Capaldi's were in his first season, so really whats the difference. The new season was supposed to be the reboot. Better ratings. All the shill media websites were touting this as the new era, higher ratings, it will be like the RTD era, only better because now, its time. Its about time for a woman. Did it work? The new direction was supposed to raise ratings, not maintain it at its lower levels. Where are all these new fans that were supposed to return it to its glory? The premier was pretty much the only thing supporters of this new iteration point to constantly, but in the end, much like Star Trek STD, Disney Star Wars and such "modern" revamps, they suck. This season, I'm sorry it sucks. I expect 5-6 more mob like responses..too funny this happens all over any board discussion. One person has an opposing opinion to the Group thought gang an gets lynched..authoritarians abound I guess.

"Think like us or You're a baf horrible person!"

Too funny. Reminds me of the thought police in 1984. Not enough self introspection to realize that I suppose. Sad really. No one can really express an opinion outside the norm. If one gets offended by an opinion contrary to the group, one is called a troll..what a sad state of discourse the Whovian fandom has become. Snarky, smartass comments abound rather then intelligent, and non-agenda gotcha driven discussion.

No agenda? Its a myth by crazed nonbelievers...then why are there articles saying the same out there?? Look outside your bubbles at the comments sections..there are alot more fans like me then you probably believe..its not a vocal minority, no matter what you try to tell yourself.

If I may... people do read your comments that is quite clear. Perhaps that speaks for having a different voice, frankly reading the same opinion though valid, doesn't make one think further. These discussions get pretty one-note otherwise.

I don't give a rat's arse about ratings. I read ratings and they make zero difference to an experience I've already had. They neither negate or validate me. What they do is gauge the progress of a product for the production team and its money makers. As a long time fan of Doctor Who it will always be in my interests to see the show survive though as I age it occurs to me the glory days seem to always be in the past It also occurs to me that I have neither fully embraced nu Doctor Who, nu Star Wars, or nu Star Trek/Discovery. There's a massive sense of trying too hard going on with each of these, they are self-conscious equations rather than creative flow. Mind you I am also a common denominator so it is in part me as I lament not what they are bringing to the table but the loss of wonder.

That being said in time I suspect Who will find its groove. It has the components - the stories could be better.

 

[Solariabsg25]

Amen. The RTD era had season-ending blockbusters which were over the top, but they generally happened once a series. But then the Moffat era hiked the stakes all the time. The whole universe knew about the Doctor. "Basically, run." His death mattered to the whole universe. His name mattered to the whole universe. He wasn't the guy who showed up, found himself in the middle of something that affected the people of a town or city full of people who had no idea who he was, did something about it, and moved on. But now she is again. She's a traveler helping people and exploring new places instead of a godlike legend. All of existence doesn't tremble at her approach; the continued existence of all eternity isn't threatened every week. And that's a good thing.

Indeed the entire storyline of Series Six centres around The Doctor being this legendary unstoppable force of nature that led to the engineering of River Song, and also led him to conclude that he had indeed become too big and it was time to go back into the shadows, or as Twelve put it becoming an "Idiot in a box, helping out".

This current series has returned Who to it's old roots, but still allows for dangling threads to be able to be followed up later. The Stenza are still out there as is the protagonist from Rosa, while who knows what danger the earth may be in if Robertson does become President of the US? Torchwood, Saxon and the Doctor-Donna were slow burns with subtle mentions rather than Bad Wolf or the Time Crack, but their eventual pay-offs were no less interesting.

 

[jaime]

So, the topic of ratings is an interesting one. Both in the philosophical "Why do we care about them" as well as in the pure numbers crunching way. So, since I'm too tired for philosophy I decided to crunch the numbers. I got the consolidated ratings for series 1-10 and the first six episodes of series 11 and calculated the average numbers of views per episode of each series. I decided to split series 6 and 7 into their automn and spring halves since they both had essentially second first episode, which seemed unfair to me. I also decided to only count episodes 2-5 of series 11 since you complained about people always using episode 1 to say that series 11 has better ratings than the other series.
So, here are the numbers:

Series 1 ---7.924615385
Series 2 ---7.638461538
Series 3 ---7.538461538
Series 4 ---8.040769231
Series 5 ---7.730769231
Series 6A ---7.66
Series 6B ---7.356666667
Series 7A ---7.962
Series 7B ---7.11625
Series 8 ---7.2625
Series 9 ---6.161538462
Series 10 ---5.454166667
Series 11 ---7.89

Sorted by numbers:

Series 4 ---8.040769231
Series 7A ---7.962
Series 1 ---7.924615385
Series 11 ---7.89
Series 5 ---7.730769231
Series 6A ---7.66
Series 2 ---7.638461538
Series 3 ---7.538461538
Series 6B ---7.356666667
Series 8 ---7.2625
Series 7B ---7.11625
Series 9 ---6.161538462
Series 10 ---5.454166667

So, Series 11 (minus it's strongest episode) beats out all of Capaldi's era, all except for half a series of Smith and the middle part of Davies' tenure as showrunner.

That being said I wouldn't go as far as saying that series 11 is widely more successful than the rest of Doctor Who. With the exception of series 9 and 10 all the series got between 7.1 and 8.1 million viewers, so it all seems pretty steady. However, when compared to the immediate predecessors Chibnall's era beats Moffat's, except for half a series. Of course we only have half a series from Chibnall, so this may very well change in the future.

Here's a screenshot of what my spreadsheet, for clarity's sake. My numbers are from themindrobber.co.uk which I hope is a decent source. I cross-checked some of their numbers with Wikipedia and another site and they were identical.

View attachment 7085
You may notice that the numbers got commas instead of dots, that's because I'm German and so is my Excel and in Germany we use dots and commas in reverse to how they're used in the US, so for example 8,7M is 8 million 700 thousand.

I may have very well miscalculated something here, so if something strikes you as odd please point it out.

I also included an average of views/episode of all series, all of them except series 11 and all of them except for series 9 and 10, just out of curiosity.


What's a baf?

Truly you are the heir to Andrew Pixley.

 

[jaime]

I um...kind of stopped watching and just read spoilers and reviews after episode 2.
This has happened before under Capaldi...but I eventually hit iPlayer. I am just not feeling it. More importantly, Nor is the rest of the household, so I don’t exactly monopolise the tv to watch it when no one else is.

 

[Starkers]

Just wanted to add, and anecdotal I know, but my friends' daughters (11 and 8) are watching Who for the first time and loving it so I guess the big question is whether Jodie is drawing the youngsters in and in their case she is.

 

[jaime]

Oh no, regular team behind hit TV show rewrite freelancer scripts - who has ever heard of such a thing!!!!

I think he is suggesting higher ups...network interference if you will.
To my knowledge new who doesn’t use freelancers as such, it tends to approach people to write an episode, and they usually have some reason as to why (fame, who experience, TV experience.)
The last time Who used New Talent was probably under Cartmel, from whence we get Aaronovitch and Rona Munro (the names that made it big) and the novels gave us a lot of the NuWho writers, including RTD himself (though already doing TV in those days) and Gatiss, and quite a few besides. The novels of course stopped having a slush pile not long before the new series started. That’s when everything got written by the same three people in the novels it seemed, and they just stopped being fun. Or any good. Or featuring classic doctors.
There’s a Renaissance now, but it’s still named and famed people at it.

 

[Marc]

Indeed, no other writer under Moffat, and none under RTD were ever consulted regarding re-writes to their episodes.

Going back the classic series during Terrance Dick's time as script editor, he would accept the script as submitted by the writer, pay them their fee and then any re-writes would be done without consultation or input and I'm not sure the writers were that bothered. They got the pay and their screen credit.

 

[Timby]

Wow! Post something outside of the norm, and get 5-6 responses of like minded Borgs. Too funny. Not a whit of individuality amongst the mob. Seems appropriate the ratings are down. Oh! But they aren't..sure..sure..keep telling yourself that. But the consolidated Ratings are way up compared to Capaldi's last season! Hmmm..sure..sure..but they are exactly where Capaldi's were in his first season, so really whats the difference. The new season was supposed to be the reboot. Better ratings. All the shill media websites were touting this as the new era, higher ratings, it will be like the RTD era, only better because now, its time. Its about time for a woman. Did it work? The new direction was supposed to raise ratings, not maintain it at its lower levels. Where are all these new fans that were supposed to return it to its glory? The premier was pretty much the only thing supporters of this new iteration point to constantly, but in the end, much like Star Trek STD, Disney Star Wars and such "modern" revamps, they suck. This season, I'm sorry it sucks. I expect 5-6 more mob like responses..too funny this happens all over any board discussion. One person has an opposing opinion to the Group thought gang an gets lynched..authoritarians abound I guess.

"Think like us or You're a baf horrible person!"

Too funny. Reminds me of the thought police in 1984. Not enough self introspection to realize that I suppose. Sad really. No one can really express an opinion outside the norm. If one gets offended by an opinion contrary to the group, one is called a troll..what a sad state of discourse the Whovian fandom has become. Snarky, smartass comments abound rather then intelligent, and non-agenda gotcha driven discussion.

No agenda? Its a myth by crazed nonbelievers...then why are there articles saying the same out there?? Look outside your bubbles at the comments sections..there are alot more fans like me then you probably believe..its not a vocal minority, no matter what you try to tell yourself.

I see you felt the need to exercise your trolling muscles again. I strongly suggest you stop whining about agendas and whatnot, otherwise you're looking at a ban. In any event, you get yet another warning for trolling.

 

[jaime]

Going back the classic series during Terrance Dick's time as script editor, he would accept the script as submitted by the writer, pay them their fee and then any re-writes would be done without consultation or input and I'm not sure the writers were that bothered. They got the pay and their screen credit.

It varied. Dicks started out as a bit of an outsider.
Cartmel practically had a little group he was training up as successors.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Just wanted to add, and anecdotal I know, but my friends' daughters (11 and 8) are watching Who for the first time and loving it so I guess the big question is whether Jodie is drawing the youngsters in and in their case she is.

My five year old nephew adores Jodie as the Doctor. He wants a Doctor Who Birthday, his mom is trying to talk him out of it because it’s hard to find the supplies in the US.

 

[RunningValkyrie]

I’ve been half heartedly interested in dr who in the past. I have watched season 1-3 and season 10 with friends. This is the first season I have watched by myself just because I like it. Jodie is great as the doctor and the companions complements the doctor really well. So far I am very pleased!

 

[Qonundrum]

There are a few trains of thought here, I'll adumbrate a few:

• Art is subjective. What one likes another might not and vice versa.
• As are anecdotes.
• "50 million cigarette smokers can't be wrong"
• etc

If we go by blu-ray releases, note how Whittaker's first season - at least as of the time of this writing - is far lower than any single year from previous eras, including Capaldi's. Which is the least anecdotal of them all in all but one way, even less so than ratings tallies as ratings tallies are a form of data whereas anecdotes are merely reactions after observing data (which is where knowledge is derived but, being human, this becomes somewhat subjective as well). And that one way of anecdotal point? Fans of Whittaker's era get a much better price compared to how much Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, Capaldi season sets sold for. But when Davison's first season, as well as Tom's, on blu-ray, sell for 50% more, that's classic Who upstaging what should be more sophisticated television?

Jodie's been hit or miss this season, so far. Maybe the finale will reveal the arc of all arcs and lead to a fantastic payoff. Chibnall's era so far has Whittaker having to act the Doctor like a 5 year old earthling to appeal most to that demographic, since the show couldn't have survived for 55 years (much less the original 26) without doing so. The show has generally been for children since 1963 (just like how water is wet, true), but prior to 2010 when did the Doctor act so absurdly or even patently toddler-like? There is a difference. The package delivery scene being the most blatant example (so far, *cough*) and it didn't help that the contents being a fez only made viewers realize that Jodie's having to act out a Smith script as Smith was just about as bad with the same toddler-like mannerisms. No originality in the Doctor and I do feel bad for Jodie not getting to make a mark of her own but having to copycat, whereas Smith admitted he liked the show and was consciously trying to mimic it on his own. If Whittaker stayed, maybe the next showrunner will have done the 13th Doctor a bit more justice. The potential is clearly there.

 

[Saul]

I gave up by episode 2. Of course I might get back into it seeing how things go. Maybe a binge watch might be in order. I kinda look forward to the next series more as there will be some recurring villains which is a draw for me. If the show is successful more power to it.

 

[The Wormhole]

If we go by blu-ray releases, note how Whittaker's first season - at least as of the time of this writing - is far lower than any single year from previous eras, including Capaldi's. Which is the least anecdotal of them all in all but one way, even less so than ratings tallies as ratings tallies are a form of data whereas anecdotes are merely reactions after observing data (which is where knowledge is derived but, being human, this becomes somewhat subjective as well). And that one way of anecdotal point? Fans of Whittaker's era get a much better price compared to how much Eccleston, Tennant, Smith, Capaldi season sets sold for. But when Davison's first season, as well as Tom's, on blu-ray, sell for 50% more, that's classic Who upstaging what should be more sophisticated television?

I'm afraid I really don't get how the price of a Blu-ray set is somehow an indicator of quality or popularity.

 

[Qonundrum]

I gave up by episode 2. Of course I might get back into it seeing how things go. Maybe a binge watch might be in order. I kinda look forward to the next series more as there will be some recurring villains which is a draw for me. If the show is successful more power to it.

I didn't give up but I did start fast forwarding scenes. Especially when the sonic screwdriver got whipped out, which was way too often and even with the Doctor gleefully pointing out how much a waste of time some of those whip-out moments were. The psychic paper was proven this season to be such an embarrassment as the episodes where it's not used that force the Doctor to have to have proper scripting show much better care in trying to set up interest and intrigue than catering to tiny attention spans by whipping out the cop-out cheats. Some people say "it's just a plot device", but more people are saying "the episodes are a bore" or "convenient" or whatever. Make the story build up suspense by getting rid of the cop-out cliches, which are better suited to a series trying to mimic Harry Potter to begin with.

 

[Qonundrum]

I'm afraid I really don't get how the price of a Blu-ray set is somehow an indicator of quality or popularity.

Neither did the people lambasting Capaldi's complete series set being much lower in cost than Smith's, since their claim was that Smith's era was so much better. But what goes into the price to begin with? Smith's era cost more because it was more popular, to bring in more profit? Can the same rule apply to Whittaker? What changes have occurred to make the cost so much lower? I agree, perception of ratings isn't the only factor. Yet people do seem to put a lot of emphasis on it, which is interesting.

And I agree about your point about ratings figures. As I indicated, art is subjective. That alone contracted my post long before you or anyone else pointed it out.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, Whittaker's season is the shortest, with three less episodes than most (four less, for sets that include Christmas specials) and significantly less than the Baker and Davison seasons that are out on Blu-ray. I'm sure that's a factor in price determination. Or even just look at how many discs there are. Whittaker's season is 3 discs, Baker's is 6, Davison's 8. The Blu-ray for Smith's first season is six discs, Capaldi's 4. Considering Whittaker's season has half as much as most of these seasons, it only makes sense it would be significantly cheaper.

 

[jaime]

Well, Whittaker's season is the shortest, with three less episodes than most (four less, for sets that include Christmas specials) and significantly less than the Baker and Davison seasons that are out on Blu-ray. I'm sure that's a factor in price determination. Or even just look at how many discs there are. Whittaker's season is 3 discs, Baker's is 6, Davison's 8. The Blu-ray for Smith's first season is six discs, Capaldi's 4. Considering Whittaker's season has half as much as most of these seasons, it only makes sense it would be significantly cheaper.

Trust me when I say that’s not normally how the Beeb work these things xD
I think the post also mentioned that it simply wasn’t selling as well, and that Davison and Baker outsold by fifty percent. That’s quite interesting, if not conclusive.
What it means for the show is maybe not as interesting, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
I know I haven’t bought modern Who DVDs etc since series two, apart from series 7a which I think was a present on special offer. I am interested in buying complete Matt Smith set, but only at a low price tbh. I watched the Big Bang the other night, since I own it on iTunes by coincidence, and it really made me miss that era. That’s the end of their first season, and The Ponds and The Doctor are really making it sing. The new series isn’t singing to me like that, and nor did Capaldi tbh, even if that Doctor sang a different note in places.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think the post also mentioned that it simply wasn’t selling as well, and that Davison and Baker outsold by fifty percent. That’s quite interesting, if not conclusive.

Considering it hasn't been released yet, I'm not sure what conclusion one can make about sales. For that matter, Davison's season hasn't been released on Blu-ray yet either. I guess you can measure pre-orders, but you got to be eager to prove this season a failure if you're going to use how many pre-orders its Blu-ray set has two months before release as an indication it's failing.