Has Doctor Who Really Gotten Worse?

1246710

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And stop putting it after crap like Don't Scare The hare(or whatever it was called) :rolleyes:

    Actually that, in and of itself, says a LOT about how the BBC view Who. It's a show that they consider capable of standing alone and pulling an audience with no help whatsoever. As annoying as the schedule changes are with Who can you imagine them doing that for any other show?
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And stop putting it after crap like Don't Scare The hare(or whatever it was called) :rolleyes:

    That was the worst television show in the history of television. It was almost universally hated. Thank goodness it was axed after 3 episodes!

    Edit: Apparently it wasn't axed after 3 episodes! I haven't even seen it anywhere since then. The beeb must have moved it to a better time slot or something, because "So you think you can dance" or something was on before Doctor Who for most of the episodes, as far as I remember.
    Does anyone know where it went?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    Generally you will always find people who are unhappy about something to be louder than those who aren't. Especially on the old interweb.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 523
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Does anyone know where it went?

    Straight to hell
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sigsig wrote: »
    Straight to hell

    Satan wouldn't want it.
    Anyway, I read a review of "Don't Scare the Hare" and someone commented this:

    "The makers of that programme should be reported to Ofcom.

    ...and possibly the european court of Human Rights, on behalf of everyone forced to sit through it while waiting on Doctor Who"

    :D:D
  • IvanIVIvanIV Posts: 30,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Probably somebody scared it off after all. It was a true WTF moment when I came across it the other day. I'd expect something like that from ITV, but BBC? :rolleyes:
  • TLC1098TLC1098 Posts: 1,780
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I tolerate Moffets era. Most of my friends give up on it during the middle of series 5 which is a shame because they used to love Who.

    The problem with the show now is that theres no modern city episodes hardly any action the episodes are in buildings and crawling through tunnels and no planets or space stations.

    Moffat writes good storys The Eleventh hour and A good man goes to war where too of his best but some episodes can get boring.

    To be honest this is the only site where people actually like Moffats era everywhere else people seem to hate it.
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TLC1098 wrote: »
    I tolerate Moffets era. Most of my friends give up on it during the middle of series 5 which is a shame because they used to love Who.

    The problem with the show now is that theres no modern city episodes hardly any action the episodes are in buildings and crawling through tunnels and no planets or space stations.
    It might amaze you to learn this, but a surprisingly large number of people do not live in cities or particularly want to see endless stories set in London or Cardiff. And a decent story is far more important than 'action' to anyone with a brain.

    Moffat writes good storys The Eleventh hour and A good man goes to war where too of his best but some episodes can get boring.

    To be honest this is the only site where people actually like Moffats era everywhere else people seem to hate it.
    To be honest, that's a ludicrous statement. I could point you to a number of Who forums where the opposite is true.
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TLC1098 wrote: »
    I tolerate Moffets era. Most of my friends give up on it during the middle of series 5 which is a shame because they used to love Who.

    The problem with the show now is that theres no modern city episodes hardly any action the episodes are in buildings and crawling through tunnels and no planets or space stations.

    Moffat writes good storys The Eleventh hour and A good man goes to war where too of his best but some episodes can get boring.

    To be honest this is the only site where people actually like Moffats era everywhere else people seem to hate it.

    That's what I feared. The people here do tend to be very polite (most of the time) and conservative. Most other places are filled with moaning haters of the new Moffat era.
    :(:(
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That's what I feared. The people here do tend to be very polite (most of the time) and conservative. Most other places are filled with moaning haters of the new Moffat era.
    :(:(

    http://www.gallifrey5forum.co.uk
    http://crikey.forumotion.com

    Two sites where this is patently not the case. There are many others.
  • Benjamin SiskoBenjamin Sisko Posts: 1,921
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TLC1098 wrote: »

    To be honest this is the only site where people actually like Moffats era everywhere else people seem to hate it.

    Er... Why, prey tell, are the ratings still then? Why are the AI figures still above 85? Why is it that MY group of friends love speculating on the new series just as much the previous era? Why is it that Empire magazine recently ran an article about how brilliant the Moffat Era is, and much better they are finding it to the Davies era?

    Big budget effects and modern cities don't always make a good story. *CoughPartnersInCrimeCough*

    And even Gallifrey Base has the Moffat Era's episodes being just as well received as the Davies Era!

    CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! :(
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 631
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I liked partners in crime
  • TLC1098TLC1098 Posts: 1,780
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Er... Why, prey tell, are the ratings still then? Why are the AI figures still above 85? Why is it that MY group of friends love speculating on the new series just as much the previous era? Why is it that Empire magazine recently ran an article about how brilliant the Moffat Era is, and much better they are finding it to the Davies era?

    Big budget effects and modern cities don't always make a good story. *CoughPartnersInCrimeCough*

    And even Gallifrey Base has the Moffat Era's episodes being just as well received as the Davies Era!

    CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! :([/QUOTE

    Actually Partners in crime was not a bad episode.
  • BobbyMaloneBobbyMalone Posts: 709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TLC1098 wrote: »
    Er... Why, prey tell, are the ratings still then? Why are the AI figures still above 85? Why is it that MY group of friends love speculating on the new series just as much the previous era? Why is it that Empire magazine recently ran an article about how brilliant the Moffat Era is, and much better they are finding it to the Davies era?

    Big budget effects and modern cities don't always make a good story. *CoughPartnersInCrimeCough*

    And even Gallifrey Base has the Moffat Era's episodes being just as well received as the Davies Era!

    CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG! :([/QUOTE

    Actually Partners in crime was not a bad episode.

    No it was a diabolical episode. Coronation Street hasbeens, annoying balls of fat written into the story for no other reason than to sell merchandise, poor special effects, embarassing slap.stick. I don't care if its set in a city or not.

    Doctor Who is supposed to be timeless. It's not some modern day exercise in action and city living.

    As Benjamin Sisko pointed out your assertions about falling populairity are based on shaky anecdotal evidence. The Moffat era has widely been critically acclaimed and is fairing well with the viewing public.
  • tingramretrotingramretro Posts: 10,974
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the quote function's playing up again...
  • BobbyMaloneBobbyMalone Posts: 709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Le sigh
  • TLC1098TLC1098 Posts: 1,780
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It might amaze you to learn this, but a surprisingly large number of people do not live in cities or particularly want to see endless stories set in London or Cardiff. And a decent story is far more important than 'action' to anyone with a brain.
    To be honest, that's a ludicrous statement. I could point you to a number of Who forums where the opposite is true.

    Show me some the the few i've been on don't like and would you like to know something that is funny.

    If you go on to a Moffat interview on youtube everyone says how much Davies sucked and glad he is gone and he was obsessed with Rose. Then you go onto a Davies interview and everyone says they hate Moffat and that Moffat has destroyed DW and he making it like the Mccoy era and it's going to fail because the Mccoy era failed.

    I never watched the classic era so I wouldn't know what the Mccoy era was like. :confused:
  • ZariusZarius Posts: 176
    Forum Member
    The McCoy era gets the stick because it was the last gasp for the original run of the series, not helped by the BBC pitting it against Corrie for the entirety of it's run. It's not really the pantomime disaster most modern fans paint it as today, but it didnt win a massive audience either because of the scheduling.
    TLC1098 wrote: »
    To be honest this is the only site where people actually like Moffats era everywhere else people seem to hate it.

    That's bollocks. Gallifrey Base is considered the hub of Whovian fandom since it took over from the late Outpost Gallifrey, and the majority there love the show. Most fandoms outside of DW I've found also love Moffat's era (like Kryptonsite and Gateworld)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That's what I feared. The people here do tend to be very polite (most of the time) and conservative. Most other places are filled with moaning haters of the new Moffat era.
    :(:(

    With all due respect, why is that "what you feared"? There's a wide selection of people on here that have responded to you with reasoned, rational arguments along with explanations as to why a) Who is in rude health and b) you hear complaints about the show. But you'll take a single person giving an opinion that backs up their own personal view of the current show as confirming your initial question?

    For that matter why is "polite and conservative" (which, conservative, really? Have a look at some of the episode specific threads to dispel that one) considered the exception rather than the norm? Frankly those corners of the internet where that's not the case tend, in my experience anyway, to offer very little of value and shouldn't be considered a worthwhile indicator of... well, sorta anything really.
  • Chester666666Chester666666 Posts: 9,020
    Forum Member
    spiney2 wrote: »
    All nu who has been dire, with the occasional exception.

    Mind you, I just watched Ghost Light, also complete crap.

    a classic episode unlike rtd's era
  • ZariusZarius Posts: 176
    Forum Member
    Ha. A majority consensus says otherwise. Try again troll.
  • TheSilentFezTheSilentFez Posts: 11,103
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    With all due respect, why is that "what you feared"? There's a wide selection of people on here that have responded to you with reasoned, rational arguments along with explanations as to why a) Who is in rude health and b) you hear complaints about the show. But you'll take a single person giving an opinion that backs up their own personal view of the current show as confirming your initial question?

    For that matter why is "polite and conservative" (which, conservative, really? Have a look at some of the episode specific threads to dispel that one) considered the exception rather than the norm? Frankly those corners of the internet where that's not the case tend, in my experience anyway, to offer very little of value and shouldn't be considered a worthwhile indicator of... well, sorta anything really.

    Calm down, I just replied to the first comment I read when I opened the page after a while.
    Maybe my choice of words was flawed, but this is exactly the same way I feel.
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Calm down, I just replied to the first comment I read when I opened the page after a while.
    Maybe my choice of words was flawed, but this is exactly the same way I feel.

    i agree with the poster you quoted, when i saw your post ( and indeed this one) it has actually made me question your motives for starting this thread, as you seem determined to believe the worst in spite of people giving you solid evidence that the show is doing pretty much as well as ever and pointing out to you that RTD's era was equally criticised. You seem to want to believe the unreliable anecdotal nonsense some other people are peddling instead, even though it's been discredited.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 159
    Forum Member
    Season 4 specials average 8m; series 6 averages 7.6m. Trend is down.

    To lose 1 exec producer is unfortunate, to lose two is downright careless.

    I have nothing against series arcs. They do give shows a coherence stand alone episodes don't give.

    To argue as many of you do that disliking where Moffat is taking Dr Who is because we don't like change, want RTD and Tennant back is to ignore the fact that Moffat is the showrunner and Matt Smith is the Doctor.

    To some of you, it's a more intelligent show. So if we don't get it, we're just too thick? Treating your audience with contempt is a sure fire way to lose viewers and get camncelled, as many US shows have discovered.

    Do I care who the little girl in spacesuit is? No.
    Do I care if Amy's pregnant or not? No
    Do I care about River Song? No

    What I do care about is the answer to what is the challenge the Doctor faces and how he is going to solve it.

    For a series that is supposedly cleverly crafted - taking A Good Man Goes to War - why does it takes the Doctor 19 mins to show up? I'd like to work out why the 12th Cyber Legion got destroyed in a scene of gratuitous violence, when the Tardis would have already backtracked the signal going to the Amy Ganger? Since the Doctor knew his enemies were using gangers, why weren't both the rescued Amy and baby given the sonic screwdriver test? Why did the Doctor ask River who she was? He's in telephathic link with a being who exists simultaneously in all points of time and space across 11 dimensions. River can fly a Tardis, so has the same link -words not needed; scene not needed.

    The BBC has confirmed the split of season 7 across 2012 and 2013. Budgetary issues or concerns about quality? Time will tell.
  • ZariusZarius Posts: 176
    Forum Member
    tscchope wrote: »
    To some of you, it's a more intelligent show. So if we don't get it, we're just too thick?

    You answered this question with the following:
    Do I care who the little girl in spacesuit is? No.
    Do I care if Amy's pregnant or not? No
    Do I care about River Song? No[


    What I do care about is the answer to what is the challenge the Doctor faces and how he is going to solve it.

    Those three story elements you claim not to care for are part of the series arc, and the challenge The Doctor must overcome.
    For a series that is supposedly cleverly crafted - taking A Good Man Goes to War - why does it takes the Doctor 19 mins to show up?

    He's recruiting. You want him to immediatly show up all guns blazing just like that without giving the story time to introduce all the essential elements that instruct the audience on what to expect and how to react? You obviously know nothing of story construction and want to be spoon-fed set peices immediatly. This was a flaw in RTD's writing at times and it's one Moffat avoids. Less is more.
    Since the Doctor knew his enemies were using gangers?

    The Doctor did not know they were using gangers all of the time. He also didnt have time to process everything that was going on because of the urgency in the assault.
    Why did the Doctor ask River who she was? He's in telephathic link with a being who exists simultaneously in all points of time and space across 11 dimensions. River can fly a Tardis, so has the same link -words not needed; scene not needed.

    Scene was needed to establish the revelations for the remaining supporting characters and the audience, since you claim you do not care for River Song, you are blind to the essentiality of a scene due to your bias.

    Likewise The Doctor is mistified by River, not yet capable of putting the peices together, and obviously because River is only PART Time Lord, not all the ideas behind her nature neccersarily have to fit because the plot EXCUSES IT, she could easily not possess a telepathic link with the TARDIS (You don't pay attention to Amy's pregnancy because you, again, state you do not care for such a vital plot point. Another chinc in your armour) . Besides, (and if you were a true fan of the original series, you'd know this) IT IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR EXPERIANCED COMPANIONS TO PILOT THE TARDIS WITHOUT HAVING A TELEPATHIC LINK TO THE SHIP.

    You are creating arguments out of thin air. Because you don't have an argument. Your "points" are just grunty nitpicking. I could poke holes in Battlestar Galactica's ridiculous "God did all of it" scenario, I don't because the plot excuses it and it's a brilliantly crafted show in every other aspect.
    The BBC has confirmed the split of season 7 across 2012 and 2013. Budgetary issues or concerns about quality? Time will tell.

    Budgetary reasons, but your biased mind is already made up and you will delude yourself into thinking it is about a perceived drop in quality.

    Go watch Eastenders.
Sign In or Register to comment.