http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/chibna...jlo3oRRy3TggG-YlILZUdZD39pA9voQlayqA8Pc9IVans Perhaps you should start, Chris. "Orphan 55" was a hobo-infested dumpster fire.
I guess viewer numbers is the only form of criticism that he'll know about. (And then blame on something other than the writing.)
I really like this statement: "If we allow other things in then we’re not making our vision." It's a roundabout way of saying "I'm going to do what I like, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it." It's also in the Royal "we" so that makes it extra authoritative.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. This is the first episode of Chibnall's run I've actually disliked, and it really earned that distinction.
Hardly alone in not reading reviews, an awful lot of writers/actors/musicians/directors don't. Oh God I'm defending Chibnall. I think I need a lie down...
I think you'd second guess yourself if you read reviews all the time. Some people like what you do, some won't but I think it's better to stick to one idea and go all out or you get stuff like the Justice League film or Armageddon 2001.
Exactly. I think it's probably fair to say Chibnall will get a feel for reviews, there'll presumably be all manner of comittees reporting on what worked/what didn't, there'll be the viewing figures obviously and the AI figures, and all manner of other focus groups. That he doesn't read tabloid journos with an obvious axe to grind or fandom in general who, let's be honest, will have wildly different views to say the least, doesn't mean he isn't open to making changes. It's very clear from these first three episodes that some things from last year were taken on board.
If this is the "right" way, then anyone who listens to feedback is somehow wrong to do so? I disagree. Each artist should decide for themselves if they want to pay attention to feedback, and if they use that feedback to inform future decisions.
I don't believe him. Of course he is going to read stuff written about him. He might try and block it out but it's just human nature. If people are talking about you how would you not want to find out what they are saying. Granted I don't think he spends hours constantly checking on Twitter or whatnot for the latest talk but I am sure he is familiar with some of the reviews. If he wasn't how would he even know that people weren't happy with no familiar monsters in season 1 and thus needing to address the issue. Jason
Given what criticism has devolved into I don’t blame him. Especially online criticism which is largely whining about the reviewer didn’t like it and it becomes a bizarre rant about whatever their particular hang up is.
Man, taking it off the air for a WHOLE YEAR, for no apparent reason, was just such a great idea, wasn't it?!
I wouldn’t trust anything that particular site posts. It’s all fictional clickbait generated to tell alt-right fanboys what they want to hear. I used to get it in my recommended news feed on Firefox. It’s all articles about how women are ruining media and similar bizarre ideas. They’re just making shit up, don’t buy it.
Remember in his last season Capaldi's overnights were sub four million, by some margin at times. Plus you can add between 1.5 and 2 million to that from iPlayer. Are the numbers as good as they were when Jodie started, or during the Tennant/Smith heyday, nope, but maybe that's just not possible anymore. The show's been (off and) on for 15 years, tastes change and it has way more competition than it ever used to.
They’re carefully selected and excludes information to push a narrative. TV ratings use several methods to determine the viewers since few people watch TV live now. So no, the figures aren’t accurate.
Does this thread serve much of a purpose besides Chibnall bashing? I mean, fine, no one's required to like him, but many writers and producers out there make it a policy not to read reviews of their work. This is nothing new. But, Oh no! Chibnall won't read reviews. He's unfit to run Doctor Who! Save us Moffat! Why have you forsaken us RTD? Wake me up when there's a real discussion going on here.