Which is despite what the ProLAMs claim the lowest since the show returned . That means people that the public thought that this story was average ins ted of good to excellent like every other story
You're missing the point - which is that an 'average' or 'poor' reception for Doctor Who is still considered 'good', on average, by those rating it.
No-one has ever claimed that it isn't the lowest AI figure so far.
I must say, that I thought Love and Monsters was pathetic! I actually fell asleep watching him rabbiting on, about the doctor. I hated it. I would definalty give it a dismal 0/10
I must say, that I thought Love and Monsters was pathetic! I actually fell asleep watching him rabbiting on, about the doctor. I hated it. I would definalty give it a dismal 0/10
If you're definalty sure?
I never understand how people can give something a 0/10. For me there's usually at least *some* redeeming feature, be it dialogue, music, costume, nice bit of acting etc which would always rescue a programme from scoring zilch. Then again I'm a pedantic optimistic English/Media teacher who probably analyses things too much.
I dont think it is a 'classic' but still think it is an entertaining episode with a well written, tight script with some wonderful diolouge. Maybe 5 minuets to long, as others have said before it would have ben more powerful if it ended at the dream-like scene with the mother. But apart from that I've no problems with it:)
I dont think it is a 'classic' but still think it is an entertaining episode with a well written, tight script with some wonderful diolouge. Maybe 5 minuets to long, as others have said before it would have ben more powerful if it ended at the dream-like scene with the mother. But apart from that I've no problems with it:)
I find it odd how many episodes of Doctor Who and Torchwood seem to be either 5 minutes too long or 5 minutes too short.
How often do we feel that the resolution is rushed through, or that there is padding at the end of the episode?
How I wish an episode could be just as long as it needs to be, rather than having to conform to an arbitary standard length - which is probably set for commercial (ie overseas sales) reasons more than anything else, but which is quite ironically applied to a show that gets moved around the schedules on a regular basis because some of the programmes around it won't conform to the standard themselves!
I love "Love and Monsters"! Elton is fantastic and the rest of LINDA. It's an episode I've watched quite a lot. Granted I'm not keen on Peter Kaye's alien but besides that I think there are some great one liners and it has quite a sad edge too.
You're missing the point - which is that an 'average' or 'poor' reception for Doctor Who is still considered 'good', on average, by those rating it.
No-one has ever claimed that it isn't the lowest AI figure so far.
But I've seen posters trying to use the AI to prove that this is one of the best stories not one of the ones at the bottem end of the scale . Oh and by the way it is ranked as an average piece of drama not a good piece of drama
"Doctor Who" fans are sad geeky losers living in the past and having relationships with paving slabs, and the monster is always a wobbly rubber guy-in-a-suit that speaks with a hard regional accent? What's not for the Press to like?
But I've seen posters trying to use the AI to prove that this is one of the best stories not one of the ones at the bottem end of the scale .
I've never seen that happen
Oh and by the way it is ranked as an average piece of drama not a good piece of drama
It's score is average in the quantitative not qualitative sense. Dramas tend to get higher AI results - so the average score is high - 77 - which is in the 'good' to 'very good' range.
It was OK I suppose. It was a bit too silly, but I guess that was the point. I don't think I'd bother watching it again though.
Marc Warren was very good, and I liked how they gave Jackie Tyler something slightly different to do than usual. Their scenes together were good- I did find it interesting that they had worked together before, in an episode of 'A Touch Of Frost' when Camille Coduri was playing a woman who had been kidnapped by a psycho played by Marc Warren- very different roles to their Doctor Who characters.
It's score is average in the quantitative not qualitative sense. Dramas tend to get higher AI results - so the average score is high - 77 - which is in the 'good' to 'very good' range.
try going on the Doctor Who forum and second according to Jon Blum who knows these things 77 for a drama is average . all but as handful of stories since the series returned and only 1 since season1 have been good to excellent . Love And Monsters is an average piece of drama while DIM/ EOD were good.
try going on the Doctor Who forum and second according to Jon Blum who knows these things 77 for a drama is average . all but as handful of stories since the series returned and only 1 since season1 have been good to excellent . Love And Monsters is an average piece of drama while DIM/ EOD were good.
Let's just make something clear, and I'll use the L&M AI score of 76 for this.
An AI of 76 means that the average mark out of ten that was given to it by the sample viewers was 7.6.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I marked something 7.6/10, it would mean I thought it was good. If I thought it was average I'd give it 5.
So on that basic assumption (and if anyone would genuinely give a programme 7.6/10 if they thought it was average please speak up!) The average viewer thought Love and Monsters was good.
The average score of 77 for drama means that the viewers watching drama generally think they're good too.
So yes, L&M is average amongst its peers (drama shows), but it is good in the estimation of its viewers.
Somewhere around this thread or forum there is an overall average AI, which is something in the 60s I think.
Why isn't it 50? For the usual reason that people will tend to watch the kind of programmes they like, I suggest.
But even if you use 65 (or whatever it is) to define "average" in AI terms, L&M still scores a considerably above-average score.
try going on the Doctor Who forum and second according to Jon Blum who knows these things 77 for a drama is average . all but as handful of stories since the series returned and only 1 since season1 have been good to excellent . Love And Monsters is an average piece of drama while DIM/ EOD were good.
Jon Blum will (and does) make the same point I made, and the same point that The Slug has just explained in detail, that 77 is the average score for drama *because* drama scores highly. I won't add to The Slug's excellent post above.
Also - no-one on the Doctor Who forum has ever made the point that a score of 77 makes L&M one of the best stories. Frankly I've never seen anyone claim that an AI figure means a story is good or excellent. Plenty of people have *claimed* that others do that, but oddly no-one can ever point to an actual post where that has happened. Funny that.
Jon Blum will (and does) make the same point I made, and the same point that The Slug has just explained in detail, that 77 is the average score for drama *because* drama scores highly. I won't add to The Slug's excellent post above.
Also - no-one on the Doctor Who forum has ever made the point that a score of 77 makes L&M one of the best stories. Frankly I've never seen anyone claim that an AI figure means a story is good or excellent. Plenty of people have *claimed* that others do that, but oddly no-one can ever point to an actual post where that has happened. Funny that.
And if anyone did make that claim, I'm sure we could all agree that they were mistaken.
All the figure does is indicate how much the programme was enjoyed (or appreciated if you prefer). Which is certainly one of the factors that contributes to programme makers and others determining if it was successful or not, but by no means the only factor.
Let's just make something clear, and I'll use the L&M AI score of 76 for this.
An AI of 76 means that the average mark out of ten that was given to it by the sample viewers was 7.6.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I marked something 7.6/10, it would mean I thought it was good. If I thought it was average I'd give it 5.
So on that basic assumption (and if anyone would genuinely give a programme 7.6/10 if they thought it was average please speak up!) The average viewer thought Love and Monsters was good.
That's averages for you!
One half of the audience could vote top-whack for anything DW, and give it 10. The other half could give it around a lowly 5. End result, it gets a respectable 7.6. Which is all very well, but is it "Doctor Who"?
One half of the audience could vote top-whack for anything DW, and give it 10. The other half could give it around a lowly 5. End result, it gets a respectable 7.6. Which is all very well, but is it "Doctor Who"?
The credits said 'Doctor Who' and it had the Doctor in it. I'm pretty certain it wasn't 'Heartbeat'.
One half of the audience could vote top-whack for anything DW, and give it 10. The other half could give it around a lowly 5. End result, it gets a respectable 7.6. Which is all very well, but is it "Doctor Who"?
Well, as 5 isn't 'lowly' but 'average', and 10 is 'perfection', 7.6 is certainly respectable, be it "Doctor Who" or "Stars in their Pants".
The credits said 'Doctor Who' and it had the Doctor in it. I'm pretty certain it wasn't 'Heartbeat'.
Well, the credits said "Doctor Who", and I think it had the Doctor in a bit of it, but it had more in common with a particularly shit episode of Chuckle Brothers than Doctor Who.
Up until L&M I was pleasantly surprised to find on visiting my 60+ dad (who had never really expressed an interest in sci-fi and who I can't remember watching the old series when I was a boy) to find that he had been watching Doctor Who and enjoying it.
But we parted company after Love and Monsters.
I thought it was excellent but my father expressed the opinion that it was crap.
I'll admit that I didn't like the look of the monster or Kay's delivery but I thought the concept and the script very amusing, witty and clever and I'd be happy to see it's like again.
I would liken it, in style, to the X-Files "The Post Modern Prometheus". A fun episode that plays with the format and isn't to be taken too seriously.
Comments
You're missing the point - which is that an 'average' or 'poor' reception for Doctor Who is still considered 'good', on average, by those rating it.
No-one has ever claimed that it isn't the lowest AI figure so far.
1) The Doctor was barely in it;
2) Who fans don't generally like obviously silly monsters.
But, if you can get past that (oh, that and the blow-job gag), then this is about as brilliant as TV gets.
In short, I agree with the Times reviewer.
5/5
Regards,
Cypher
If you're definalty sure?
I never understand how people can give something a 0/10. For me there's usually at least *some* redeeming feature, be it dialogue, music, costume, nice bit of acting etc which would always rescue a programme from scoring zilch. Then again I'm a pedantic optimistic English/Media teacher who probably analyses things too much.
How often do we feel that the resolution is rushed through, or that there is padding at the end of the episode?
How I wish an episode could be just as long as it needs to be, rather than having to conform to an arbitary standard length - which is probably set for commercial (ie overseas sales) reasons more than anything else, but which is quite ironically applied to a show that gets moved around the schedules on a regular basis because some of the programmes around it won't conform to the standard themselves!
I've never seen that happen
It's score is average in the quantitative not qualitative sense. Dramas tend to get higher AI results - so the average score is high - 77 - which is in the 'good' to 'very good' range.
Marc Warren was very good, and I liked how they gave Jackie Tyler something slightly different to do than usual. Their scenes together were good- I did find it interesting that they had worked together before, in an episode of 'A Touch Of Frost' when Camille Coduri was playing a woman who had been kidnapped by a psycho played by Marc Warren- very different roles to their Doctor Who characters.
Let's just make something clear, and I'll use the L&M AI score of 76 for this.
An AI of 76 means that the average mark out of ten that was given to it by the sample viewers was 7.6.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I marked something 7.6/10, it would mean I thought it was good. If I thought it was average I'd give it 5.
So on that basic assumption (and if anyone would genuinely give a programme 7.6/10 if they thought it was average please speak up!) The average viewer thought Love and Monsters was good.
The average score of 77 for drama means that the viewers watching drama generally think they're good too.
So yes, L&M is average amongst its peers (drama shows), but it is good in the estimation of its viewers.
Somewhere around this thread or forum there is an overall average AI, which is something in the 60s I think.
Why isn't it 50? For the usual reason that people will tend to watch the kind of programmes they like, I suggest.
But even if you use 65 (or whatever it is) to define "average" in AI terms, L&M still scores a considerably above-average score.
Jon Blum will (and does) make the same point I made, and the same point that The Slug has just explained in detail, that 77 is the average score for drama *because* drama scores highly. I won't add to The Slug's excellent post above.
Also - no-one on the Doctor Who forum has ever made the point that a score of 77 makes L&M one of the best stories. Frankly I've never seen anyone claim that an AI figure means a story is good or excellent. Plenty of people have *claimed* that others do that, but oddly no-one can ever point to an actual post where that has happened. Funny that.
And if anyone did make that claim, I'm sure we could all agree that they were mistaken.
All the figure does is indicate how much the programme was enjoyed (or appreciated if you prefer). Which is certainly one of the factors that contributes to programme makers and others determining if it was successful or not, but by no means the only factor.
One half of the audience could vote top-whack for anything DW, and give it 10. The other half could give it around a lowly 5. End result, it gets a respectable 7.6. Which is all very well, but is it "Doctor Who"?
The credits said 'Doctor Who' and it had the Doctor in it. I'm pretty certain it wasn't 'Heartbeat'.
Well, as 5 isn't 'lowly' but 'average', and 10 is 'perfection', 7.6 is certainly respectable, be it "Doctor Who" or "Stars in their Pants".
The professional critics disagreed...
Sorry you didn't like it, Yoonix, but I think you missed a trick.
Regards,
Cypher
But we parted company after Love and Monsters.
I thought it was excellent but my father expressed the opinion that it was crap.
I'll admit that I didn't like the look of the monster or Kay's delivery but I thought the concept and the script very amusing, witty and clever and I'd be happy to see it's like again.
I would liken it, in style, to the X-Files "The Post Modern Prometheus". A fun episode that plays with the format and isn't to be taken too seriously.
Heh, it reminded me more of the Darin Morgan-penned X-Files episodes, stuff like 'Jose Chung's From Outer Space'.
I recall the more silo'd X-Files fanatics ranting about that one at the time - for me, it showed just how flexible the show could be.
Regards,
Cypher