The reason why critics like Doctor Who more than fans do

[JRoss]

So it's been pretty bad these last few seasons. An episode comes out, lots of fans like it but more fans don't and the ones that do like it usually say that it was not the best but they moderately enjoyed it. The critics, on the other hand, tend to do nothing but heap praise on the show, which is especially jarring when the writing or acting in a particular episode have been so glaringly deficient that it makes you wonder what they're showing to the critics.

The reason for this disconnect is pretty simple. Critics care what people think of their opinions, fans don't. A critic needs credibility and so they do a little research, see keywords like "cult favorite", "long-running" and "brilliant" and then assume that the fans will crucify them if they step out of line with popular opinion.

It's why the Grand Moff enjoys his darling status with the media. He built up goodwill with fans when his episodes were all one-off deals. Look at critics like Ben Lyons or Peter Travers, who declare every film a masterpiece in order to be popular. Travers at least got a little better once people started calling him on it. Ironically, intentionally writing contrary reviews, like how Armand White said that Toy Story 3 was a poor film but the Transformers movies were great is how some critics try to establish themselves as mavericks or geniuses.

It all boils down to a lack of honesty coupled with caring too much about their reputation.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

So, you're saying it's about ethics in Doctor Who journalism.

 

[Skellington]

Fans are, by definition, extremists. Critics are more likely to be level-headed, though the term "critic" does cover a very wide spectrum. A critic writing for a populist newspaper is probably going to give high marks to something that has big, dumb, crowd-pleasing spectacle.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Well, I've enjoyed the last few series.

And I suspect the majority of fans have too. Sure, some don't like the current version of the show, but I think that negative opinions tend to be more forcefully expressed, which might be giving you a false impression that the majority of fans are hating it. They're really not. But Doctor Who is a pretty broad church. Hell, some people don't like Tom Baker. (Burn the heretics...)

 

[Starbreaker]

This has been my favorite series of the series. It's has comedic tones but it's got an overall tone of seriousness that I've really liked, and Peter Capaldi and Jenna Coleman are amazing.

 

[Sindatur]

I'm not sure how you're defining "Fan", but, 6-8 Million watch in Britain every week, and, I believe BBCA gets about 6 Million a week, plus all the other Countries it's sold to, and how widely it's downloaded.

Here on TreKBBS Doctor Who Forum, the A and B options on the Episode Polls have been consistently above 70%, and adding in the C option, most have been over 90% (I think this episode, is actually the lowest this season). So, if you're defining Fan as those post on BBS, it's only about 10% on this site that voted the lower two options each episode this Season, that's hardly an example of a Majority of Fans

I've been watching since about 1980 on PBS and have recorded DVDs of every episode, including the Recons, that I downloaded from Youtube and burned to DVD, and I've enjoyed most of Moffat's episodes.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

We also live in a world where people who hate a show passionately continue to watch it every week and are considered/consider themselves 'fans'. Not that I'm against taking a critical eye to the things we love, of course But usually if I'm as disenfranchised with a show, I stop watching it, and no longer consider myself a fan.

I also think it makes sense that the critics would have a more positive view than the 'fans'. The Critics are paid real-live money to write about watching a TV show -- hot damn! The 'fans' force themselves to watch a TV show they hate because there was a time when they didn't hate it. So they don't even get the satisfaction of watching it, let alone money.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I'm not sure how you're defining "Fan", but, 6-8 Million watch in Britain every week, and, I believe BBCA gets about 6 Million a week, plus all the other Countries it's sold to, and how widely it's downloaded.

I don't think it matters for your point but BBCA numbers are probably more like 2M or so.

 

[Sindatur]

I'm not sure how you're defining "Fan", but, 6-8 Million watch in Britain every week, and, I believe BBCA gets about 6 Million a week, plus all the other Countries it's sold to, and how widely it's downloaded.

I don't think it matters for your point but BBCA numbers are probably more like 2M or so.

Ah, thanks for the correction, but, still as you say, it doesn't much matter, it's a rating the Channel is quite happy with, and it's consistent and has grown over the years they've carried the show.

 

[Mr Light]

I think another factor (I don't know who these praising critics are) might be that that recent seasons have emphasized character drama and cutesy humor over story or logic or coherence which panders to some more than others.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Some of the most vocal fans, especially the younger ones, tend to fall in love with one particular aspect of a TV show, movie franchise, book series, to the extent that they may feel betrayed when such aspect is changed or altered in any way - you know how young love is.

Some fans spend so much time and energy thinking about their favorite series - writing fanfic, posting memes on tumblr, debating in forums - that they end up thinking that anything that strays too far away from their narrow definition of the show is "the worst thing ever."

The reason critics like Doctor Who more than fans do is that some critics actually like Doctor Who, while some of the most extreme fans, acting like scorned lovers, do not really enjoy it at all.

 

[doubleohfive]

Has Peter Travers ever given ANYTHING a bad review?

 

[sidious618]

How do we know most fans haven't liked recent seasons? That seems like a bold claim that comes more from your opinion than anything else. I didn't care for the Tennant years, but I'm not going to say fans in general didn't like them.

 

[doubleohfive]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who has followed the show since 2005 that the majority of the acclaim today for Doctor Who is built largely on the Eccleston/Tennant years laying the groundwork for it. The show didn't have the exposure it enjoys now, but those series between 2005 and 2010 did re-introduce the character and the world of the Doctor back to television audiences.

I mean, certainly Series 5 was well received as well and had something to do with it, and the Davies years certainly weren't without their flaws but I doubt very much Doctor Who would be enjoying the kind of praise and accolades it gets today under Moffat's rule had he been the one to originate it back in 2005.

I'm not saying it's not possible, I just think that a lot of the built-in audience that contributes to the wide awareness of the show and the recent surge in popularity here in the US owes just as much if not more to the Eccleston/Tennant years of the show and how well-received they were when originally transmitted.

Also: With the notable exception of "The Day of the Doctor," everything since the end of Series 5 has been hit or miss and entirely lacking in consistent quality.

 

[Kelthaz]

Well personally I do not like the current Doctor Who. I quit watching midway through series 7, but came back for Capaldi's run to see if the show had improved. It had not. I quit again around the Robin Hood episode. I'll be back when Moffat steps down.

So some fans do dislike the current show, but I'm pretty sure that fans like me are in the minority. General reception for the current series has been very positive overall.

 

[Ithekro]

There seem to be four sets of American fan bases.

1. The ones that use to watch it on PBS when it was the 3rd and 4th Doctor onwards.

2. Those tha saw it on the Sci-Fi Channel with the 9th Doctor.

3. Those that watched on the BBC satelite/cable feeds for the 9th and 10th Doctor.

4. Those that started when BBC America promoted the 11th Doctor heavily.

I'm sort of a mix of 1, 2, and 4. I did see a few episodes here and there growing up on PBS. I did see one episode on Sci-Fi Channel in passing (Bad Wolf), then got hooked by the 11th Doctor more recently. It might be because every episode I happened to see was something to do with the Daleks, who I could not take seriously at the time. Ineffective, stilted screaming voiced, cheap looking props with toilet pluggers didn't look all that serious to me as a kid or teen. The only other episode I saw was I think Seeds of Doom Ep 1 with Tom Baker, and the man changing to a plant scared me too much at age 5. Only with the 11th Doctor did I start to see something different that caught my attention.

 

[Jax]

An episode comes out, lots of fans like it but more fans don't

Any source for those numbers? Just off our own polls alone the postivies easily beats the neagtives + most fans don't post online + ratings remain solid year in & year out + AI ratings from the BBC remain in the low to mid 80's. Hell the worldwide audience has been growing every single year so Doctor Who is very well liked.

It all boils down to a lack of honesty coupled with caring too much about their reputation.

So its impossible they just like it? they have to be lying because you have an issue and you surley can't be in the minorty

I do think with the exception of the 1st season in 2005 that season 8 was probably the least impressive (I won't say weakest). The 2nd half of season 7 began to show cracks in the foundation of the show though I did love the 50th special and enjoyed the Xmas special. Despite all of this, the show is far from finished and while Capaldi will not top Smith or Tennant in my preference, he will become a really good Doctor. The increasing but still large minorty of the fanbase who are having issues with Who is in part to the show being 9 years old since its return and some people just grow tired. Also Moffat has tried to tap into the older Who of his age with the new tone of the stories and an older Doctor, which has probably alienated some of the fans who only know Doctor Who from 2005 onwards.

I loved the first 2 years of Moffat and I have been indifferent with some of the last 2 years but I have no issues with Moffat sticking around for the whole of the 12th Doctor's journey that will last till at least 2016 IMO and I believe he will. The ratings are the strongest they have ever been worldwide and good in the domestic market with around 7.5 million (could be higher) set to be the final rating for the season finale so the BBC are more than happy and if there happy nothing changes in terms of allowing Moffat and co to run the show.

 

[USS KG5]

So it's been pretty bad these last few seasons. An episode comes out, lots of fans like it but more fans don't and the ones that do like it usually say that it was not the best but they moderately enjoyed it. The critics, on the other hand, tend to do nothing but heap praise on the show...

I'd be a lot harder on the fans personally, rather than the critics.

Every fan has an idea of what Doctor Who should be like, often a fixed point where it was best from their point of view. Ironically this can be almost anywhere, you will likely find more than a few posters here whose favourite Doctor is Colin Baker. Nothing wrong with that, but it leads to extreme subjectiveness.

Critics on the other hand at least aim for objectivity. The only way you can really judge something objectively is to judge how well it achieves what it is trying to do, and focus less on whether it should be trying to do it.

Moffat, like him or not, has taken a completely different tack to RTD in his seasons, and it has worked out well enough to what he wants to do. I think the general critical opinion has been it is all decent (which is fair) but it went through a confusing phase in series 6, and the later half of series 7 was a tad ropey., with series 8 a distinct improvement.

Overall, for its budget, it enjoys extremely high standards of production, SFX and creative talent. I continue to really enjoy the show, and will look forward to series 9.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I grew up with Doctor Who in the 1980s, watching the franchise on PBS.

I am watching the franchise from the beginning, listening to the commentary. There are many commentaries that are informative, especially the ones with Barry Letts and Terrance Dicks. I, also, have read the series About Time, which covers the franchise up to Series 2. And I do research, like what is good world building?, or like what is the career path of a British soldier?

I don't mind the wonky science of the show; I accept that it is a space fantasy. What I don't like is that the show has become more soap opera than space fantasy, and that the writing demonstrates a disregard for the basic foundations for storytelling.

Recently, on one of the commentaries, they were talking about music. Music in the Classic Doctor Who was used for emphasis in a scene and to enhance the emotions of the characters. Now, the music has become wallpaper, and it is literally drowning out the words of the characters.

Story is the apple, plot is the arrow through it. Plot is a sequence of events as revealed to the reader, but story is all the stuff in and around that.

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/09/17/25-things-you-should-know-about-worldbuilding/

I think Moffat is good at writing plot, but he doesn't know how to write a story. In military parlance, story is strategy and plot is tactics. There are very few people who are good at both. Usually, a person is good at one, and lousy with the other.

For the critics, I think, like many people who are bewildered about strategy and tactics, they are bewildered about the difference between story and plot, and associate them as being the same. I think many critics, when praising the episode, are demonstrating a lack of understanding. I think knowing this helps me to evaluate what they are saying. I have also come to know that not all the critics are lavish in their praise of the episode.

 

[USS KG5]

For the critics, I think, like many people who are bewildered about strategy and tactics, they are bewildered about the difference between story and plot, and associate them as being the same. I think many critics, when praising the episode, are demonstrating a lack of understanding. I think knowing this helps me to evaluate what they are saying. I have also come to know that not all the critics are lavish in their praise of the episode.

So what you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the critics are wrong as, in their role as professional drama critics, they know less about what makes good drama than you do?

I can understand that you feel that subjectively you know what works best for you as an individual, after all that is just common sense, but you are commenting that you know better objectively than the critics do, because of your greater knowledge of what makes good writing?