Dr Who Ratings Thread

1204205207209210512

Comments

  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bokonon wrote: »
    Yes fabulous- declining ratings followed by thoroughly well deserved cancellation.

    Creatively they turned McCoy's era around. Series 1 is awful but there are classics in series 2 and 3.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 118
    Forum Member
    cylon6 wrote: »
    Not surprising. As poor as the Trial Of A Timelord season was it was nowhere near as bad as McCoy's first season which was shocking. Easily the worst ever season of Doctor Who. But who knew that the next two series would be so good and contain two of the best ever stories in Fenric and Remembrance Of The Daleks?

    I may be misremembering, but McCoy's first season (which, for people of my critical bent, has it charms and moments) was a conscious shift in tone to counteract a) declining ratings and b) critics of the C.Baker era.

    The "consensus" was that the show had gotten too serious, violent and all that garb, so… We got McCoy's first season. Light, silly, fluffy, little overarching continuity.

    McCoy, like Smith, had to work with what he was given. Even Tom Baker would've struggled to with some of those scripts!
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So Atlantis is back next week and will be gone by the end of May. So we can take that out of the schedule discussions for Series 9.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'll never complain about DW against The X Factor again.. because it could be against the higher-rating BGT :p

    Atlantis - 2.5m
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dr Who ratings have always been around the 9 to 10million mark even back in the Old Who era. The viewing figures for the show have been overall consistent over all the years apart from when the BBC killed the show at the end of the old era by sticking it mid-week against the soaps.
  • MulettMulett Posts: 9,055
    Forum Member
    I may be misremembering, but McCoy's first season (which, for people of my critical bent, has it charms and moments) was a conscious shift in tone to counteract a) declining ratings and b) critics of the C.Baker era.

    The "consensus" was that the show had gotten too serious, violent and all that garb, so… We got McCoy's first season. Light, silly, fluffy, little overarching continuity. McCoy, like Smith, had to work with what he was given. Even Tom Baker would've struggled to with some of those scripts!

    I think when the show was put on 18-month hiatus in 1985 it was done so for the reasons you've described above (too serious/violent) - at least, those were the main reasons given by the BBC/Michael Grade.

    But I don't think John Nathan-Turner paid much attention to those criticisms and when the show returned for Trial of a Timelord, I don't think there had been any significant shift in tone or content. Perhaps it was a little bit less violent but overall there was no major change in style. The issue for the Trial season was that Michael Grade then complained (publicly) that the show was feeling very 'stale'. And really - after an 18-month gap - it should have come back fighting.

    So I think the significant change in style for McCoy's first season was JNT's reaction to the 'stale' criticism. I think he realised he'd not done enough to improve/change the show for the Trial season and so gave the show a massive change the following year instead. And it worked. As I recall, Grade said (or was reported as having said) he was very happy with McCoy's first season and announced quite early on that the show would be back for another season.

    This is all from memory so I am hoping it is mostly correct.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If there's to be a later timeslot for Series 9, too, it's probably a good thing we're taking the declining X Factor over Britain's Got Talent these days.
    Britain's Got Talent averaged 10.5m (49%)
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alfster wrote: »
    Dr Who ratings have always been around the 9 to 10million mark even back in the Old Who era. The viewing figures for the show have been overall consistent over all the years apart from when the BBC killed the show at the end of the old era by sticking it mid-week against the soaps.

    The last Doctor in the classic era to get 9/10m was Peter Davison in his first series. Colin Baker's highest was 8m in his first series and McCoy's high was 5/6m.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Somebody might be interested in BARB's May Viewing Report. Many words and figures regarding platforms and overnights and timeshifts and shares - also the weather.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
  • MulettMulett Posts: 9,055
    Forum Member
    CD93 wrote: »

    Oh dear lord, what a miserable line up of shows. It really does need a Doctor!
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mulett wrote: »
    Oh dear lord, what a miserable line up of shows. It really does need a Doctor!

    I want to say that I like JS+MN, but it's not exactly lighting up Sundays with 1.8m. Imagine what 5m+ would mean to it!
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I hope we get Charlie_ITV in to this thread, this series. His DS comments are great value :)
    The one thing that has saved it is it does well on BBC America

    Have some trivia. The lowest rated episode of Series 8 was Flatline with 6.71m. Here's the list of episodes which have rated below this for modern Who (in chronological order):

    The Impossible Planet
    The Satan Pit
    Love & Monsters
    Daleks in Manhattan
    Blink
    The Poison Sky
    Silence in the Library

    The Hungry Earth
    The Lodger
    The Big Bang
    Hide
    Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS
    The Crimson Horror
    Nightmare in Silver

    Series 6 narrowly scraped off the list with The Almost People (6.72), as did Series 1 with The Doctor Dances (6.81).

    Love a good meaningless list, me. Though I suppose it's not that meaningless. Just a reminder that in the grand scheme of things, it's all very boring. Which is probably why the fictitious Ratings Crisis must continue - just to make things interesting.
  • Michael_EveMichael_Eve Posts: 14,444
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wasnt on here at the time, just doing some general internet lurking, but do remember when The Satan Pit's ratings came out and some people's reactions. (great story, btw.) That was 2006. We're still here. Who in C21 has never gone under a 6m final figure. C20 Who didn't manage that 10 years in. Think in this multi channel day and age, that is remarkable.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Doctor Who's return coincides with the beta launch of BARB's (Online) TV Player Report - which has been a long time coming.
    Gold standard figures for online TV viewing to be published in September 2015

    BARB today announces that the beta version of the TV Player Report is to be released in September, providing official figures on the level of viewing to on-demand and live-streamed content through online TV Player apps.

    http://www.barb.co.uk/press/release/379

    *lays out sleeping bag, gas lamp and a selection of reading material*

    Just getting ready to live in this thread for a while.
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CD93 wrote: »
    Doctor Who's return coincides with the beta launch of BARB's (Online) TV Player Report - which has been a long time coming.



    http://www.barb.co.uk/press/release/379

    *lays out sleeping bag, gas lamp and a selection of reading material*

    Just getting ready to live in this thread for a while.

    That is big news!
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
  • PaperSkinPaperSkin Posts: 1,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The launch of BARB's (Online) TV Player Report - so what's this, a better way of predicting how many people are watching? any chance someone could explain what it means moving forward.

    Although naturally it spells doom, I know that atleast, DOOM I TELL YA!! because apparently DW ratings are a disgrace and the show has been on its death bed since ooh a couple of episodes into David Tennant's first series, in fact I think the show has already been cancelled and I've been imagining it appearing on my TV (in cinemas, games) and being a part of pop culture in the UK and around the world, I mean the other day I even imagined watching clips on youtube of the Doctor and companion actors being interviewed in America and Germany, crazy right, obviously this is a delusion on my part to help cope with its cancellation as so accurately predicted by some people on this forum/the internet, though when exactly it got cancelled and my imagination took over I couldn't tell you as the show was on a knifes edge pretty much constantly....apparently. Just poking fun :p
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PaperSkin wrote: »
    The launch of BARB's (Online) TV Player Report - so what's this, a better way of predicting how many people are watching? any chance someone could explain what it means moving forward.

    Basically, it means that we'll get official ratings on laptops, desktops, tablets and smartphones. We'll get online ratings for the first time.

    Currently, the BARB ratings only include TV-based catch up. So anybody who visits the iPlayer website to watch a programme has no impact on the final figures.

    (Not that most of us have any impact on the figures anyway - that's not how it works :pBut never mind that. )

    Bearing in mind that Doctor Who can get roughly 1.5-2 million iPlayer hits per episode, it's clearly a popular platform. Though this system will be counting devices and not hits. So if a whole family crowds around a laptop to watch something...... well...
  • PaperSkinPaperSkin Posts: 1,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CD93 wrote: »
    Basically, it means that we'll get official ratings on laptops, desktops, tablets and smartphones. We'll get online ratings for the first time.

    Currently, the BARB ratings only include TV-based catch up. So anybody who visits the iPlayer website to watch a programme has no impact on the final figures.

    (Not that most of us have any impact on the figures anyway - that's not how it works :pBut never mind that. )

    Bearing in mind that Doctor Who can get roughly 1.5-2 million iPlayer hits per episode, it's clearly a popular platform. Though this system will be counting devices and not hits. So if a whole family crowds around a laptop to watch something...... well...

    Thanks for the break down. As you point out DW does really well on iplayer, setting some records if I remember correctly, so including that more is going to be helpful, which is good.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PaperSkin wrote: »
    Thanks for the break down. As you point out DW does really well on iplayer, setting some records if I remember correctly, so including that more is going to be helpful, which is good.

    IIRC, The Eleventh Hour, Asylum of the Daleks & Day of the Doctor broke records in their succession. Series 8 had 18.9m requests in total, averaging 1.6m per episode - according to the Beeb.

    So yes, it's going to be interesting to see.
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,468
    Forum Member
    If Doctor Who does well on iPlayer compared to other shows, that supports the notion that Doctor Who fans, on average, are more tech savvy than the average TV viewer. They're more likely to engage with new tech, and engage earlier with it, than the average person.

    Is there a correlation between an interest in science fiction and an interest in real science?
  • cylon6cylon6 Posts: 25,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CD93 wrote: »
    IIRC, The Eleventh Hour, Asylum of the Daleks & Day of the Doctor broke records in their succession. Series 8 had 18.9m requests in total, averaging 1.6m per episode - according to the Beeb.

    So yes, it's going to be interesting to see.
    GDK wrote: »
    If Doctor Who does well on iPlayer compared to other shows, that supports the notion that Doctor Who fans, on average, are more tech savvy than the average TV viewer. They're more likely to engage with new tech, and engage earlier with it, than the average person.

    Is there a correlation between an interest in science fiction and an interest in real science?
    Interestingly iPlayer stats for the last series were down slightly on the previous series. Plus iPlayer stats count views over a month while the online report will be weekly.

    It'll be interesting to see how much Doctor Who adds.
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Won't take much to light up Saturdays.
    BBC 1
    18:25: Film: Raiders of the Lost Ark - 3.15m (22.1%)
    20:15: National Lottery: Five Star Family Reunion - 3.18m (19.1%)
    21:10: Casualty - 3.98m (22.6%)

    BBC 2
    20:40: Dad’s Army - 1.32m (7.7%)
    21:10: First Light - 1.01m (5.9%)

    ITV
    18:30: Film: Mamma Mia! - 2.17m (14.9%)
    20:30: The Cube - 1.88m (10.8%)

    Channel 4
    19:00: Homes by the Sea - 1.00m (7.0%)
    21:00: Film: The Inbetweeners Movie - 899k (5.5%)

    Channel 5
    20:00: Transporter: The Series - 302k (1.9%)
    21:00: Tut - 859k (5.8%)

    BBC 3
    20:15: Film: Meet the Fockers - 800k (4.7%)
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ha, this GB post might be my favourite
    FWIW, I've never known any fandom be as obsessed with ratings/AIs as this fandom. I've been a fan of a ton of shows since 2005 that actually have been cancelled, and their online message boards weren't full of fervent obsessings over how the general public were perceiving the show. If it wasn't for Blum and the gang I'd have no idea what AIs even were, and be happier for it. It's one of many annoying aspects of this being a 'flagship show', and all the media wankery that comes with that weight of expectation.

    Everyone needs a hobby :cool:
Sign In or Register to comment.