Options
Is Dr Who better as a cult classic or with mass appeal
thorr
Posts: 2,153
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Threat title self explanatory really. Does the programme lend itself to being a cult show with a few knowledgeable viewers and lots of insider knowledge, or does it work better appealing to the masses, with broader appeal and lighter stories with ability to dip in and out on a whim.
Without question, its future prospects as a BBC flagship programme is dependent on its broad appeal, but is the programme diluted too much as a consequence...
Without question, its future prospects as a BBC flagship programme is dependent on its broad appeal, but is the programme diluted too much as a consequence...
0
Comments
But hasn't it always been so? Who of the 70s/80s wasn't exactly short on mass appeal.
This is true and it has always saddened me that it was never really celebrated at that time, not as it is today! Even the 20th was only really noticed by the fans! IMO!
The difference is the internet and the 'more visible' fan-base and easier way to comment, moan about and celebrate the show.
Tom Baker got between 8 to 10million viewers....with no 'time-shift watching' as of today.
Tennant/Smith are getting around about 8million viewers with time-shifting.
Hence, pretty much no difference in viewing figures...so Dr Who has the same mass appeal it always has done.
It was culty back then because people had to hunt out information on it...these days the BBC is throwing it in your face and it's more difficult to avoid spoilers etc if you don;t want things spoilt.
No, Micheal Grade screwed Dr Who and got it cancelled. Putting it up against Coronation Street etc during the week which is why viewers were lost.
No. The BBC put it out of our misery. For those of us who had grown up through the Troughton-Pertwee-Baker glory years, it had become painful to watch because JNT forgot how to entertain the general audience when he started pandering to the die hard fans. That is why viewers were lost .
Nope, check the ratings. Regardless of the quality of some stories, the ratings were still good until that first hiatus, in fact Colin Bakers first series had similar ratings to the early Troughton years. That 1985/86 hiatus is the point where a chunk of the audience was lost. Some argue it was the quality of the show, others argue the show was strangled by a lack of love and budget. Personally I believe the BBC killed the show by starvation.
I always liked it.
Why do people think everyone else felt/feels the same as them?
I always liked it, too.:)
Sorry I wasn't saying that my view was the same for everyone, but I honestly believe that the quality of the programme went downhill which, amongst other things, lead to its ultimate demise IMO.
It hasn't demised.;)
It suffered a slow and painful death from 1981-1989 IMO.
An unsuccessful attempt at resuccitation was made in 1996 before it made a miraculous recovery in 2005 and continues in very good health to this day.....
I should have said that IMO;) and IMO Dr Who has always been around since I started watching it with great enjoyment and always will be around
But did people really sit around from 1981-1989 watching DW while squirming with embarrasment at how bad it was, and hoping it would be cancelled because it was painful to watch?
I just watched it and sometimes I thought it was great and sometimes not good (like now, in fact), but overall enjoyed it and looked forward to the next episode.
I was gutted when it was cancelled, and never thought, well it's put it out of it's misery!
I actually enjoyed the Davison years a lot and most of the Colin Baker and Sylv McCoy. There were individual stories that I didn't like due to the writing but there are always ones you like or don't like. I wouldn't call it a slow painful death more lack of money and support
Like you Granny I liked some stories more than others.I was gutted too when it ended.
Are the new stories better than the classic series? Well I'm biased as I personally I liked the universe of the classic series with the the Timelords, the Master etc. That was why I got into the show. I prefer the cult classic status personally but I think we have accept that the show needs mass appeal to stay on the air. Sometimes when the script is a good one
we get both and I get excited then but its subjective of course.
the 1996 revival with Paul McGann was hugely successful in the UK with almost 9 million viewers. Simply because it was (a) on a Bank Holiday and (b) there was no preconceptions from an audience who had probably never seen it but had heard about it.
2005 is crucially the most important revival that Doctor Who has ever had. And I wouldn't change that mass appeal for anything. I've got a feeling that if the show was only getting 1.6 million a show, some people on here or elsewhere would still be saying that Doctor Who doesn't need the viewers or that it was the best the show had ever been.
Simply put, the show cannot do without the casual viewer - they add to the audience figures. And they can very easily be dissuaded otherwise.
Good grief (IMO). Are you starting that tedious (IMO) thing of everyone having to put IMO after every opinion? Madness (IMO).
The Sun rotates around the earth. (untrue statement of fact)
The Sun is a terrible newspaper. (IMO)
I prefer the show when it has mass appeal, especially when it is tailored to my specfific whims and nostalgic memories of the seventies.