And I'm not blaming him directly. I'm just saying, if you want to watch it live in America, you have to put up with commercials that significantly ruin the flow of the story.
2 million fewer viewers
- Thread starter JRoss
- Start date
And I'm not blaming him directly. I'm just saying, if you want to watch it live in America, you have to put up with commercials that significantly ruin the flow of the story.
I'm going to stick up for RoJoHen here. Yes, I know that Doctor Who isn't written for commercial breaks and shouldn't be judged by how it flows with commercial breaks. Yet, Doctor Who is somewhat unwatchable with them, and I may respond better to Who if the episodes flowed better with them.
The issue with commercial breaks is two-fold. First, they point out the pacing and structural issues of the episode; scenes drag out, cliffhangers fall at random. Second, the commercial pauses give the audience time to stop and think about what they've just seen before the episode starts up again, breaking the soap bubble illusion of Moffat's house style of breathless, turn your brain off, popcorn entertainment. (Though I'm sure that, even without commercials, I'd have recognized "In the Forest of the Night" for the piece of shit that it is.)
Suffice it to say, I think RoJoHen's complaint is valid. I doubt it will ever be addressed so long as BBC 1 is the commissioning body for Doctor Who, because why would they care? A few million Americans aren't their concern.
Though bizarrely if you look at the B&W episodes they would include a fade to black halfway through for a commercial break when it was sold abroad.
But why should a show which is created for BBC1 be written to suit the USA? The reverse can also be true when US shows air in the UK (on networks with ad breaks) they might not go to the break at the same points in the episode as they do in the US.
At the end of the day it simply comes down to what you are used to.
And as you point out how a show is chopped up for overseas broadcast is of little concern to the BBC. Just as how an episode is chopped for ad breaks when a US show sells overseas.
Before Series 9 premiered, I watched Series 8 on DVD. The shows are very different when they aren't being interrupted by commercial breaks. These breaks can last between 3 and 4 minutes.
If I come online to express my opinion, and that opinion is not the same as yours, this does not mean I should be automatically labeled as a hater. This non-sense has been going for a long time. It stifles conversation and debate. Worse, this bias is picked up by the people in charge, who can then easily dismiss the concerns of their fans. I care deeply about this franchise.
I grew up with Doctor Who. I do not have a preference for one or the other. I want a story that I can be emotionally invested in. I want a story with characters. It is the characters who sold me on the show in the beginning. It is the characters who sell me on the show now. I watched "Blink" yesterday. This was an episode with characters. I had a connection to each of them.
I have not felt that connection with Capaldi's Doctor nor Clara. It alarms me when the actor who plays Capaldi says,
I don't feel like I've nailed it yet - from an acting point of view, I mean. I don't yet feel that I know how to do this. Quite who the Doctor is remains mysterious to me – which is of course as it should be.
Read more: http://www.digitalspy.com/british-t...led-playing-the-doctor-yet.html#ixzz3mN8rOc5f
If the actor does not know how to portray the character, how can I, as an audience member, form an emotional connection to this character? I do not think it is possible.
It is hard to avoid the fact that the series is attracting less viewers. It is a news item in the British newspapers. The BBC headline is, Doctor Who sees millions desert opening episode. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34307519
P.S. The BBC does have a care about how the show is perceived overseas. I have read that one of the reasons for the 45-minute time limit of the episodes was due in no small part to the structure of overseas markets, especially the United States. The United States, Australia, and a few other places saw the emergence of a Doctor Who fan base in the late '70s and early 80s. I heard it said, in the commentaries, that in an attempt of broadening the franchise's appeal in Australia, the franchise had an Australian character: Tegan Jovanka. An episode can be successful in the confines of a 45-minute window and with frequent commercial breaks if the story is organized, focused, and paced well. None of these apply to "The Magician's Apprentice".
If I come online to express my opinion, and that opinion is not the same as yours, this does not mean I should be automatically labeled as a hater. This non-sense has been going for a long time. It stifles conversation and debate. Worse, this bias is picked up by the people in charge, who can then easily dismiss the concerns of their fans. I care deeply about this franchise.
I grew up with Doctor Who. I do not have a preference for one or the other. I want a story that I can be emotionally invested in. I want a story with characters. It is the characters who sold me on the show in the beginning. It is the characters who sell me on the show now. I watched "Blink" yesterday. This was an episode with characters. I had a connection to each of them.
I have not felt that connection with Capaldi's Doctor nor Clara. It alarms me when the actor who plays Capaldi says,
I don't feel like I've nailed it yet - from an acting point of view, I mean. I don't yet feel that I know how to do this. Quite who the Doctor is remains mysterious to me – which is of course as it should be.
Read more: http://www.digitalspy.com/british-t...led-playing-the-doctor-yet.html#ixzz3mN8rOc5f
If the actor does not know how to portray the character, how can I, as an audience member, form an emotional connection to this character? I do not think it is possible.
It is hard to avoid the fact that the series is attracting less viewers. It is a news item in the British newspapers. The BBC headline is, Doctor Who sees millions desert opening episode. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34307519
P.S. The BBC does have a care about how the show is perceived overseas. I have read that one of the reasons for the 45-minute time limit of the episodes was due in no small part to the structure of overseas markets, especially the United States. The United States, Australia, and a few other places saw the emergence of a Doctor Who fan base in the late '70s and early 80s. I heard it said, in the commentaries, that in an attempt of broadening the franchise's appeal in Australia, the franchise had an Australian character: Tegan Jovanka. An episode can be successful in the confines of a 45-minute window and with frequent commercial breaks if the story is organized, focused, and paced well. None of these apply to "The Magician's Apprentice".
Last edited:
To be fair it did go up against X-factor. If I were at home would the family I would have to record Who and let them watch X-factor since I would be out numbered.
The previous 2 years the show was riding on a wave with the 50th anniversary and a new Doctor it's natural that interest would die down. Someone like Paul Mcgann would hype things up again though.
The previous 2 years the show was riding on a wave with the 50th anniversary and a new Doctor it's natural that interest would die down. Someone like Paul Mcgann would hype things up again though.
The way TV is going these days, Doctor Who really seems like a show that would benefit from dumping the whole season at once. For instance, if the whole season appeared on Netflix these weekend, I would binge watch the entire thing in one or two sittings, and I know a lot of people that would do the same.
I know.
This is probably blasphemous to say, but Doctor Who would probably benefit from being taken over by a different production company. The BBC budget and filming schedule seems like a huge obstacle.
Many Netflix original series are already on their 3rd or 4th seasons, even though they've only been out for a year or two.
Netflix earns money by renewing subscriptions.
It doesn't matter when you watch their media.
The BBC (in part) earns money by selling adspace at various prices depending on what the predicted demographics/quantites of the viewership will be for particular episodes, aired at particular times of the day or night.
It matters completely when the show is aired so that it will be watched by the right people who will be programmed by advertising into buying the sponsors relevant products.
It's a waste of time and money to show irrelevant products to the wrong people if the BBC can't force the viewers to watch their media when they think their audience will be the most receptive and available to manipulation.
I swear.
It's like no one watches Madmen.
It doesn't matter when you watch their media.
The BBC (in part) earns money by selling adspace at various prices depending on what the predicted demographics/quantites of the viewership will be for particular episodes, aired at particular times of the day or night.
It matters completely when the show is aired so that it will be watched by the right people who will be programmed by advertising into buying the sponsors relevant products.
It's a waste of time and money to show irrelevant products to the wrong people if the BBC can't force the viewers to watch their media when they think their audience will be the most receptive and available to manipulation.
I swear.
It's like no one watches Madmen.
That'll never happen. Even if the BBC is slashed to a shadow of itself by the Government DW would be in the last half-a-dozen shows to go.
That said it will be moving to BBC Studios if it comes into being, which could in theory allow an independent production company who wouldn't be bound by the BBC's budget rules to make it.
For what it's worth, Doctor Who wasn't the only major British television series to see its lowest premiere ratings this weekend. Downton Abbey also drew its smallest audience for its season premiere.
Whats is the normal "cancellation threshold" for BBC produced shows? Would that be something like "significant number of episodes pulling less then 4 million viewers after adjusting for timeshift etc."? And what would a "significant number of episodes" be? half? more then 20 %?
It would be interesting to compare with a show that HAS recently been canceled because of low ratings.
It would be interesting to compare with a show that HAS recently been canceled because of low ratings.
I could be totally wrong, but I feel like reality shows like X-Factor probably draw more of a live audience than scripted shows. Reality shows are more about "What happened tonight? Who got kicked off? etc..." while scripted shows are easier to watch at your own pace. There's less urgency with scripted television.
Given that they're (in theory) not supposed to be ratings driven it's a tricky calculation. Atlantis, which would have cost the same but sold to less countries got the axe when it fell to around 3 million on overnights.
Put it this way, we're a long way from that discussion but the BBC could certainly decide that the series needs a shakeup and Capaldi could find himself out the door and being replaced with a more Tennant-ish model. In fact he's commented recently that his time on the series could end up being shorter rather than longer and that the decision wasn't up to him; so it could already be in the air.
