Doctor Who 3.0 News

[Richard S. Ta]

And yet it was cancelled and will likely be off the air for the next few years. Even Ncuti Gatwa joked about its bad ratings in an SNL monologue.

It wasn’t cancelled. You know what this whole tender process is, right?

And the keyword in what you say about Ncuti is ‘joked’. Nobody is watching terrestrial TV now in the numbers that they used to. Strictly is down, Call The Midwife is down. In the modern TV landscape, 5 million viewers is exceptional.

Eastenders (a popular British soap, to clarify to American readers) 20 years ago averaged 9-10 million viewers. By 2016, this had dropped to 6-7. In 2026, it averages 2-3 million.

Throughout the last 20 years, Doctor Who has consistently landed in the top 20 in terms of viewing figures. Its audience share has remained stable while viewing figures *throughout* television have dropped.

This is a TV problem. Not a Doctor Who problem. Anyone with even a modicum of sense can see this.

 

[Soong-type Android]

Throughout the last 20 years, Doctor Who has consistently landed in the top 20 in terms of viewing figures. Its audience share has remained stable while viewing figures *throughout* television has dropped

On the home front, the show’s viewership also took a dive. Season 15 averaged 3.8 million viewers in the UK — down a million from the previous season and well below Jodie Whittaker’s final run. “The ratings were not up to much,” someone involved in the series admitted.

https://geektyrant.com/news/why-dis...pisodes-and-culture-clash-behind-the-collapse

 

[Richard S. Ta]

https://geektyrant.com/news/why-dis...pisodes-and-culture-clash-behind-the-collapse

Yes, yes.

Look at the chart. Everything is down. If the best you’ve got is a click bait article from a rage site that you choose to believe because it fits your narrative, there’s very little point trying to educate you. It’s not my job to give eyes to the blind.

I’ll leave you with this. As in *actual* evidence:



Doctor Who, comfortably in the top 10. With comparable figures to everything around it, including the top rated soaps.

It’s a TV problem, NOT a Doctor Who problem.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

And yet it was cancelled and will likely be off the air for the next few years. Even Ncuti Gatwa joked about its bad ratings in an SNL monologue.

 

[Paul Weaver]

It’s a TV problem, NOT a Doctor Who problem.

To go back 20 years, Doctor Who rarely made it into the top ten for the week at all

​

Series One	Series Two
Aliens of London (16 April 2005) 7.63m, 2nd (day)/18th (week)	New Earth (15 April 2006) 8.62m [+ 0.99m] 1st (day)/9th (week)
World War Three (23 April 2005) 7.98m, 2nd (day)/20th (week)	Tooth and Claw (22 April 2006) 9.24m [+1.26m] 1st (day)/10th (week)
Dalek (30 April 2005) 8.63m, 1st (day)/14th (week)	School Reunion (29 April 2006) 8.31m [-0.32m] 1st (day)/12th (week)
The Long Game (7 May 2005) 8.01m, 2nd (day)/17th (week)	The Girl in the Fireplace (6 May 2006) 7.90m [-0.11m] 1st (day)/13th (week)
Father's Day (14 May 2005) 8.06m, 1st (day)/17th (week)	Rise of the Cybermen (13 May 2006) 9.22m [+1.16m] 1st (day)/6th (week)
The Empty Child (21 May 2005) 7.11m, 3rd (day)/21st (week)	The Age of Steel (20 May 2006) 7.63m [+0.52m] 2nd (day)/15th (week)

And even later a the peak of Tennant, with Last of the Time Lords reaching #7

1 CONCERT FOR DIANA (SUN 2010) - 12.22 - BBC1
2 CORONATION STREET (MON 1934) - 9.97 - ITV1
3 CORONATION STREET (MON 2029) - 9.91 - ITV1
4 CORONATION STREET (WED 1930) - 9.35 - ITV1
5 EASTENDERS (MON 1959) - 9.31 - BBC1
6 BBC NEWS (SUN 2230) - 9.24 - BBC1
7 DOCTOR WHO (SAT 1905) - 8.61 - BBC1
8 EASTENDERS (TUE 1929) - 8.21 - BBC1
9 EASTENDERS (THU 1931) - 8.08 - BBC1
10 EASTENDERS (FRI 2000) - 7.97 - BBC1

And Sound of Drums at #11


1 CORONATION STREET (MON 2030) - 10.27 - ITV1
2 CORONATION STREET (MON 1934) - 9.99 - ITV1
3 EASTENDERS (MON 2001) - 9.68 - BBC1
4 EASTENDERS (THU 1931) - 9.17 - BBC1
5 CORONATION STREET (WED 1931) - 9.11 - ITV1
6 CORONATION STREET (SUN 1929) - 9.04 - ITV1
7 CORONATION STREET (FRI 1934) - 8.78 - ITV1
8 EASTENDERS (FRI 2001) - 8.54 - BBC1
9 HEARTBEAT (SUN 2000) - 7.84 - ITV1
10 EMMERDALE (MON 1902) - 7.56 - ITV1
11 DOCTOR WHO (SAT 1915) - 7.51 - BBC1
12 THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE (MON 2101) - 7.10 - ITV1
13 EMMERDALE (THU 1903) - 6.94 - ITV1

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

It wasn’t cancelled. You know what this whole tender process is, right?

And the keyword in what you say about Ncuti is ‘joked’. Nobody is watching terrestrial TV now in the numbers that they used to. Strictly is down, Call The Midwife is down. In the modern TV landscape, 5 million viewers is exceptional.

Eastenders (a popular British soap, to clarify to American readers) 20 years ago averaged 9-10 million viewers. By 2016, this had dropped to 6-7. In 2026, it averages 2-3 million.

Throughout the last 20 years, Doctor Who has consistently landed in the top 20 in terms of viewing figures. Its audience share has remained stable while viewing figures *throughout* television has dropped.

This is a TV problem. Not a Doctor Who problem. Anyone with even a modicum of sense can see this.

If anything, that article Soong linked to makes me think it's a Disney problem as much as anything. DW should have never been partnered with Disney IMO.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

To go back 20 years, Doctor Who rarely made it into the top ten for the week at all

​

Series One	Series Two
Aliens of London (16 April 2005) 7.63m, 2nd (day)/18th (week)	New Earth (15 April 2006) 8.62m [+ 0.99m] 1st (day)/9th (week)
World War Three (23 April 2005) 7.98m, 2nd (day)/20th (week)	Tooth and Claw (22 April 2006) 9.24m [+1.26m] 1st (day)/10th (week)
Dalek (30 April 2005) 8.63m, 1st (day)/14th (week)	School Reunion (29 April 2006) 8.31m [-0.32m] 1st (day)/12th (week)
The Long Game (7 May 2005) 8.01m, 2nd (day)/17th (week)	The Girl in the Fireplace (6 May 2006) 7.90m [-0.11m] 1st (day)/13th (week)
Father's Day (14 May 2005) 8.06m, 1st (day)/17th (week)	Rise of the Cybermen (13 May 2006) 9.22m [+1.16m] 1st (day)/6th (week)
The Empty Child (21 May 2005) 7.11m, 3rd (day)/21st (week)	The Age of Steel (20 May 2006) 7.63m [+0.52m] 2nd (day)/15th (week)

And even later a the peak of Tennant, with Last of the Time Lords reaching #7

1 CONCERT FOR DIANA (SUN 2010) - 12.22 - BBC1
2 CORONATION STREET (MON 1934) - 9.97 - ITV1
3 CORONATION STREET (MON 2029) - 9.91 - ITV1
4 CORONATION STREET (WED 1930) - 9.35 - ITV1
5 EASTENDERS (MON 1959) - 9.31 - BBC1
6 BBC NEWS (SUN 2230) - 9.24 - BBC1
7 DOCTOR WHO (SAT 1905) - 8.61 - BBC1
8 EASTENDERS (TUE 1929) - 8.21 - BBC1
9 EASTENDERS (THU 1931) - 8.08 - BBC1
10 EASTENDERS (FRI 2000) - 7.97 - BBC1

And Sound of Drums at #11


1 CORONATION STREET (MON 2030) - 10.27 - ITV1
2 CORONATION STREET (MON 1934) - 9.99 - ITV1
3 EASTENDERS (MON 2001) - 9.68 - BBC1
4 EASTENDERS (THU 1931) - 9.17 - BBC1
5 CORONATION STREET (WED 1931) - 9.11 - ITV1
6 CORONATION STREET (SUN 1929) - 9.04 - ITV1
7 CORONATION STREET (FRI 1934) - 8.78 - ITV1
8 EASTENDERS (FRI 2001) - 8.54 - BBC1
9 HEARTBEAT (SUN 2000) - 7.84 - ITV1
10 EMMERDALE (MON 1902) - 7.56 - ITV1
11 DOCTOR WHO (SAT 1915) - 7.51 - BBC1
12 THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE (MON 2101) - 7.10 - ITV1
13 EMMERDALE (THU 1903) - 6.94 - ITV1

It's fallen within the top 20 pretty consistently. When it makes the top 10, it as as you say, an outlier rather than a rule.

And here's the thing. The BBC are perfectly happy with that, which is why it has run for 20 years and is up for tender now.

I believe towards the end of the Whitaker era it fell into the top 30. Disappointing but not disastrous.

To go back to 1989, and why we are NOT in the same situation now, Survival, the final broadcast story of the classic series hit 91st. Shedding further light on the present situation to reach such lowly depths it attracted 5 million viewers.

So 5 million in 1989 got you to 91st. Last year in May, same week that The Reality War aired, Race Across The World reached 1st place just shy of 6 million viewers.

Trying to paint the whole 'low viewers' problem as a Doctor Who is incredibly myopic. It isn't broadcast in a vacuum. Viewing audiences have splintered across a myriad of platforms and channels these days. Terrestrial TV is sadly in it's dying days.

Still (not aimed at you), why let facts and logic get in the way of a misinformed rant (fuckin' low viewing figures!)?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

If anything, that article Soong linked to makes me think it's a Disney problem as much as anything. DW should have never been partnered with Disney IMO.

The article is trash. We don't actually know why Disney dropped the show, but we do know they were still in negotiations for it for an unusually long time in their terms. I suppose all of that will come out in the wash one day as these things tend to.

The whole 'culture clash' is just a lot of the same old same old made up stuff and speaks volumes about the person who shared it. It's all 'someone close to the production said' and 'a well-placed source said'. 'Too woke for Trump's America'... rubbish.

It's barely worth the time it took me to skim over it. Sensationalist nonsense without a shred of evidence within.

 

[Soong-type Android]

I think Doctor Who needs a rest for a few years and then come back with a soft reboot and a new status quo. Retcon whatever needs to be retconned - "Timeless Child" or whatever else - and don't get bogged down in any explanation that will just confuse viewers. Simply don't acknowledge they ever happened. Say and show things that contradict them. If it suits the new status quo for Gallifrey to be thriving and full of Timelords, then do it. No one will care.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Terrestrial TV is sadly in it's dying days.

As a broadcast engineer who has worked in the industry for nearly as long as I've been on this board, it's depressing, but it's still true. Linear TV especially is in a managed decline.

It's also why we are NOT in the same situation as 1989. I would argue 1989 was a better time for Doctor Who. In 1989 television, and crucially the BBC, was strong, but Doctor Who wasn't. Today Doctor who is strong, but television isn't, and the BBC specifically is on deaths door. Who could come back with the right amount of time and reimagining. Television can't.

Streaming isn't that much better, the streaming companies have seen money no longer going up, and are starting to squeeze their viewers with enshittification, but they have the same problem -- there's far more options today than in the 1980s.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

@Paul Weaver

Sad as it may be, I think Doctor Who will outlive the BBC. I’m certain of it in fact.

 

[jaime]

It is cancelled in so far as the existing team essentially got their marching orders (or more accurately were demobbed) and the planned Christmas Special was canned.
The show, as is, as was, is cancelled.

It is now out for tender, as the Beeb need or want it to carry on. Not necessarily continue, as I doubt we’re gonna get a Billiegeneration, but they want the show back on air.

Which is, again, a very different situation to 89. At that point, if it had come back as in house BBC it would almost certainly have had Sylv in to do the regeneration, and Segal pushed for that on the TVM too. Even if it had gone independent, at that time, it wouldn’t be so different to what had gone before — no different to any other time the behind the scenes crew changed.

This is probably the first time in the shows history that the Beeb is mandating what appears to be a break in continuity similar to between the TVM and Rose.

 

[camdudetenger2018]

I think Doctor Who needs a rest for a few years and then come back with a soft reboot and a new status quo. Retcon whatever needs to be retconned - "Timeless Child" or whatever else - and don't get bogged down in any explanation that will just confuse viewers. Simply don't acknowledge they ever happened. Say and show things that contradict them. If it suits the new status quo for Gallifrey to be thriving and full of Timelords, then do it. No one will care.

i think that is what is gonna happen in the on screen division of doctor who

where the on screen verison of doctor who is taking a small break for a few years then the show returns as doctor who whatever year it returns like for examples doctor who 2030 or doctor who 2032

and it will most likely just start the new doctor who with the 16th doctor rescuing someone or somebodies while on a mission then that someone or somebodies will then be the doctors new companions

while the off screen divisions of doctor who and the whosverse will still continue and have somewhat no breaks

 

[JD]

Whether there would be money left for doctor who, or indeed if the BBC will stille xist in 2028/29, is anyone's guess. I'll believe it when I see it on air.

If the BBC does go under, could someone else pick up the show, or would that pretty much be the guaranteed end of Dr. Who? If the BBC and show end would the tie-ins end too? If the BBC dies and nobody else picks up the show, then I'm assuming that would nobody would be around the license it out.

Aye, I forgot they license the format out.

Do they do that with Top Gear?

Well there was an Australian version of Top Gear.

Lets say it was an incentive not to the licence the brand.

I think there was also a US version, but I don't think it lasted very long.

It is cancelled in so far as the existing team essentially got their marching orders (or more accurately were demobbed) and the planned Christmas Special was canned.
The show, as is, as was, is cancelled.

It is now out for tender, as the Beeb need or want it to carry on. Not necessarily continue, as I doubt we’re gonna get a Billiegeneration, but they want the show back on air.

It doesn't seem to me like it's cancelled it seems like it's just on hiatus while they find someone else to take over, that's very different. Just because a show's creative team has been fired doesn't mean it's been cancelled, there are plenty shows who have changed showrunners and writers but still continued on. And we've had other shows multiple years between seasons.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

If the BBC does go under, could someone else pick up the show, or would that pretty much be the guaranteed end of Dr. Who? If the BBC and show end would the tie-ins end too? If the BBC dies and nobody else picks up the show, then I'm assuming that would nobody would be around the license it out.

The BBC owns a number of valuable IPs and if it goes under, it will be broken up for parts. You can bet ITV would want Strictly or Eastenders for example. They are hits. Doctor Who the same. It would be sold off. The BBC would die but its various shows would continue if someone thought they were worth picking up. And Doctor Who is a proven long term money spinner. Someone would want it.

 

[Paul Weaver]

ITV has the same problem falling viewers too, but legally they are allowed to diversify and thus have seen dengue grow 25% in real terms since 2010, where the bbc has seen revenue shrink 25%
But the vast majority of that revenue is from itv studios growing — the production arm. The broadcast arm has recently been sold to Sky

The equivalent in the bbc side is the bbc studios commercial subsidiary. The difference is that company is part of the bbc corporation, and it’s not clear what would happen should the charter fail to be renewed. It’s likely itv studios would buy it and the IP alongside, but it would still need to find a global broadcast partner willing to fund it, and we know that didn’t go great last time. ITV the broadcaster is struggling just as much as bbc the broadcaster — revenues are both down over 25% in real terms in the last 16 years.

While the U.K. is great at producing, you still need someone to buy it, and the declining tv revenue pressures is the same globally.

 

[jaime]

If the BBC does go under, could someone else pick up the show, or would that pretty much be the guaranteed end of Dr. Who? If the BBC and show end would the tie-ins end too? If the BBC dies and nobody else picks up the show, then I'm assuming that would nobody would be around the license it out.



I think there was also a US version, but I don't think it lasted very long.

It doesn't seem to me like it's cancelled it seems like it's just on hiatus while they find someone else to take over, that's very different. Just because a show's creative team has been fired doesn't mean it's been cancelled, there are plenty shows who have changed showrunners and writers but still continued on. And we've had other shows multiple years between seasons.

The word ‘on hiatus’ are very special to a Who Fan of a certain age.
Even before Ross and Rachel were ‘on a break’ we had ‘it’s on hiatus’.


The Christmas special is cancelled. Bad Wolf Who is cancelled.

As to what we get next — well it might be a little why.

 

[jaime]

ITV has the same problem falling viewers too, but legally they are allowed to diversify and thus have seen dengue grow 25% in real terms since 2010, where the bbc has seen revenue shrink 25%
But the vast majority of that revenue is from itv studios growing — the production arm. The broadcast arm has recently been sold to Sky

The equivalent in the bbc side is the bbc studios commercial subsidiary. The difference is that company is part of he bbc corporation, and it’s not clear what would happen should the charter fail to be renews. It’s likely itv studios would buy it and the IP alongside, but it would still need to find a global broadcast partner willing to fund it, and we know that didn’t go great last time. ITV the broadcaster is struggling just as much as bbc the broadcaster — revenues are both down over 25% in real terms in the last 16 years.

While the U.K. is great at producing, you still need someone to buy it, and the declining tv revenue pressures is the same globally.

The rules over what can be advertised and when really did a number on ITV over the last thirty years.
We basically killed a whole industry and a path into a production career, between that and killing off the regional broadcasters.

 

[Paul Weaver]

We basically killed a whole industry and a path into a production career, between that and killing off the regional broadcasters.

The shift of advertising spend from TV (where viewers were) to online (where viewers are), and thus the move of advertising money from UK suppliers like ITV to US suppliers like google, was devastating.

The UK spends far more in real terms on advertising today than it did in 2005 (£47b/year rather than £34b) -- itself is a massive zero-sum game and something to be lamented. Despite this growth though, TV advertising spend has dropped 40% from £8.5b to £5.2b. In terms of GDP, it's halved from 0.34% to 0.17% since 2005.

Nowhere near as devastating as the newspaper/magazine industry's 90% drop (£15b to £1.5b). The money now goes to online (mainly google and meta) -- online was £2b a year in 2005 and £36b a year today.

(All figures adjusted by CPI)

We basically killed a whole industry and a path into a production career, between that and killing off the regional broadcasters

Only way ITV has survived is by killing off a lot of regional variation. When I was at university 25 years ago I visited the Exeter sub-region of ITV. I remember they were excited by their new SX based output suite, which was all beyond me at the time with our student tv SVHS cameras.

Those subopts (Exeter, Barnstaple, Truro) have all closed down, as have their even more local newsrooms. On top of that, even Plymouth has closed down a a studio - with output now coming from Bristol, and Devon/Cornwall's regional program I believe filmed 30 minutes earlier rather than broadcasting live from the region it covers.

I suspect the BBC will be forced to do this soon too.

Local independent radio is the same, with all channels basically being two or three networks with occasional local programs for an hour or two if you're lucky.

It's far cheaper to centralise and genericise output than to serve the audience from where they are.

 

[jaime]

The shift of advertising spend from TV (where viewers were) to online (where viewers are), and thus the move of advertising money from UK suppliers like ITV to US suppliers like google, was devastating.

The UK spends far more in real terms on advertising today than it did in 2005 (£47b/year rather than £34b) -- itself is a massive zero-sum game and something to be lamented. Despite this growth though, TV advertising spend has dropped 40% from £8.5b to £5.2b. In terms of GDP, it's halved from 0.34% to 0.17% since 2005.

Nowhere near as devastating as the newspaper/magazine industry's 90% drop (£15b to £1.5b). The money now goes to online (mainly google and meta) -- online was £2b a year in 2005 and £36b a year today.

(All figures adjusted by CPI)




Only way ITV has survived is by killing off a lot of regional variation. When I was at university 25 years ago I visited the Exeter sub-region of ITV. I remember they were excited by their new SX based output suite, which was all beyond me at the time with our student tv SVHS cameras.

Those subopts (Exeter, Barnstaple, Truro) have all closed down, as have their even more local newsrooms. On top of that, even Plymouth has closed down a a studio - with output now coming from Bristol, and Devon/Cornwall's regional program I believe filmed 30 minutes earlier rather than broadcasting live from the region it covers.

I suspect the BBC will be forced to do this soon too.

Local independent radio is the same, with all channels basically being two or three networks with occasional local programs for an hour or two if you're lucky.

It's far cheaper to centralise and genericise output than to serve the audience from where they are.

Bad for the industry and the country though. If nothing else, Yorkshire selling Corrie to every other region kept the GDP up and the money circulating.