Some of the conversations I've had with people this year, away from the forums too, have just been depressing when it comes to Doctor Who. One person I speak to about it has loathed nearly everything about the show since Series 5, but he watches in the hope he'll like it at some point. I won't question that, but then I question why he bothers trying to talk to me who has liked it an awful lot more or less consistently since 2005. We agree on very little, to the point he becomes frustrated at what I have to say, and has gone as far as to say my opinions are actually stupid (and don't get me wrong, he's usually a rather intelligent, well-reasoned kind of person!).

He's tried to convince me that Matt Smith can't act and is the biggest mistake the show has ever made. He insists Peter Capaldi is an "okay" actor but miscast terribly. He complained that The Zygon Inversion was annoyingly pacifist, and that Doctor Who should be fun, not talking about war themes all the time. We get an episode like The Girl Who Died which had a good laugh as it went, but he said it wasn't fun because the plot wrapped itself up its own ar*e. He says that Series 9 has too many two-parters, but finds nothing good to say about any of the standalones (Sleep No More, and for all intents and purposes The Girl Who Died/The Woman Who Lived were both standalones). He hates Missy with a passion and hated her return. He dislikes Clara avidly, because she's "not like Rose or Martha...she's not a real person", and he thinks it's insane that I consider her to be a joint-favourite companion with the likes of Donna (he's offended I'd consider Clara to Donna). He cannot fathom that Tennant ranks as my least favourite of the four leads since 2005 - and has since proclaimed that automatically means I hate his time on the show (I don't remotely), because he's trying so hard to take offence to our wildly different viewpoints. He loathes Toby Whithouse for everything except School Reunion and so automatically hated those episodes from him we got this year.

Meanwhile a friend of mine who is an avid RTD-era fan but a critic of Moffat-era Who, was false-fed a rumour that Russell T Davies was acting as a de facto advisor to Moffat this year. I decided to let the rumour stick to see what happened, and lo and behold said friend has come to genuinely like Series 9 more than any since Tennant left. There's always the chance it's coincidence, but I do think that for many people they get so carried away with their dislike of one aspect of the show (a lead actor, the showrunner etc.) that their hatred grows and becomes irrational and to an extent unnegotiable. That no matter what the show does - fun, slapstick, witty or serious, involved, dark... or a mix of both...these people will find fault, or simply complain at whatever is missing from a particular episode (All the fun episodes aren't serious, all the serious episodes aren't fun... the show is therefore not fun nor taken seriously ever...and is always what I hate...so it's bad).

__

I've struggled to convey my opinion of Moffat this year without having people play the whole 'clan mentality' thing on me. I've liked and hated what he's done over the years, but when credit is due I give it - Series 9 has been brilliant in my opinion, and barring a few hiccups and issues I've liked it tremendously. At the same time, I also feel I'm happy for Moffat to step aside, and I'll admit to being a bit disappointed (though not offended, and judgement reserved to some extent) that he's around for Series 10...as it feels like the time to go in my opinion. So I like him, but I want him gone... the same principle as liking a film but not wanting it to have a sequel. And yet I have had people question my tastes for liking his work this year, and I've also had people hating on my opinions because I'd happily see him step down too.

And that says it all. You can't have an opinion, it seems, without actually upsetting someone over it. And they then feel compelled to justify their argument to an extent they try to present it as some kind of fact.

It depends what sites you go to, or which blogs.
Ive been on very negative sites and also positive sites. Then there is much variation between episodes. Most sites have a "group think" going on where a majority viewpoint dominates and gets repeated.Many preferred series 8 to series 9. Series 9 had a rough start on many sites until the last three episodes.

Its as if we are all seeing a different programme! And maybe thats good...because it shows we are a diversity and not a homogenised clone set.

Why? What has he said?

That the next companion is someone completely new and not someone we've seen before in Clara's time as companion.

Poster from Reddit who got advance screenings of both Sleep No More and Face The Raven has posted some teasers and opinions of the latter... definitely some relatively minor spoilers in here...



"Overall, this episode works very well. It's not a stand-out classic, but practically everything about it is either good or great. I'm sure it'll be clearer once the rest is seen but right now, I'm going for an 8". (for reference they gave Sleep No More a 6).

...and finally ten more from Idiotbox...

- The Doctor nearly has a garden wedding
- “Pick up my most annoying stuff”
- 82
- Countdowns have never been so ominous
- You may learn something new about cartographers
- The Doctor can never resist a mystery
- Always listen to the small print
- The universe can be very small
- Just who’s in charge?
- Flowers

Positive review from DOG

http://www.denofgeek.us/250662/docto...er-free-review

"The Capaldi era feels, to me at least, like a vintage era for the show"

"There are several flat-out exquisite moments in this episode - not least Peter Capaldi giving his work in "The Zygon Inversion" a run for its money - that surely deserve at the very least a lot more respect. Some thunderous applause would help, tooeady."

Positive DWTV review

http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/face-th...view-78119.htm

Equally positive, my preview for Metro

Not perfect, by any means - the middle part of the story is very rushed - but it's a good one nonetheless.

If then I will be quite disappointed, because to me, that would

Hopefully there's a genuine (and good) twist in this episode that no-one has seen coming.

that was an uneasy peace at best,

The problem with the previews, for many, is that the reviewers have cried wolf for far too long. Take last week's dreadful episode. Most reviewers gave it fair-to-good (pre)reviews but a third of people on here thought it was either bad or very bad. Until we get some honesty in the reviews then I'll be taking them with a pinch of salt.

What part of these previews do you find dishonest?

You saying slouchingthatch is being dishonest? Is it not conceivable that he just....enjoyed the episode?

What's dishonest about the fact I genuinely enjoyed the episode? It's the job of a reviewer to give a personal opinion, not try to predict what the majority will think. (And if one-third thought it was bad, doesn't that mean that two-thirds thought it was at least okay?)

Certainly in my review of Sleep No More I pointed out that the episode was by no means perfect, but I liked that it pushed a different type of storytelling, even if it was flawed.

Overall, I've enjoyed this series a lot, despite some unevenness. It's less new-Who and more classic Who in style, and I like that (as someone who grew up with Tom Baker). I was unimpressed with the two Ashildr episodes, but I think I noted as much at the time - and even then I found enjoyable elements in them. I'll accept that I tend to focus more on the positives than the negatives - I don't write scathing reviews for the sake of it - but when I really don't like an episode (and I think I made it clear at the time that I thought Robot of Sherwood was utter tosh), I'll say it.

Although this could also be explained by the rumours of

Not to mention the fact we have seen Bonnie this series.

And (to the OP), just because Jenna is in the cast list doesn't necessarily mean Clara is alive. We've seen dead characters reappear in flashbacks in many different shows, let alone a sci-fi series like Who. Blimey, we've seen previous regenerations of the Doctor on the show often enough!

Given the recent allegations that the BBC leans on people to give good reviews I'm afraid it makes me very skeptical about what I'm reading.

And given the diverse opinions that series 9 has generated among fans and viewers, maybe someone can point me towards a professional/semi-professional reviewer who has given largely negative reviews to any of this series' episodes?

Everyone apparently loves it: the Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Metro, DoG, Cultbox, DigitalSpy, etc. etc. etc. This doesn't remotely match the feedback that the episodes get online or on social media. It's an entirely one-sided lovefest. Coincidence, or something else?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying that when someone gives a positive preview and the episode turns out to be 'Sleep No More' or 'The Girl Who Died', it doesn't really make me anticipate the forthcoming episode with much excitement.

I too am wondering how a reviewer is somehow responsible for others' opinions on the show.

OK, imagine you gave almost every episode a poor review, which would of course be your 'personal opinion'. Do you think you'd i) be in the job for long? and ii) even be getting the previews in the first place? I appreciate that you like the episodes, that's fine. But if you didn't like the episodes? That might be another kettle of fish entirely especially when it came to accessing the BBC's preview material.

Take the preview reviews with a pinch of salt of course, but perhaps the reviewers actually like the episodes they've watched... There's no reason to assume that they are being dishonest.

According to the poll around 120 people really didn't like last week's episode - but 5 million + people actually watched it, so statistically, those 120 people are a teeny proportion. It's very easy to assume that the few dozen people who regularly post here on DS represent a snapshot of the whole Who audience. But we simply don't. We are more vocal, more opinionated, more passionate about Doctor Who than most people, but we are unrepresentative of the wider viewing public. The mainstream media reviews are also quite different from the sorts of reviews that hard core fans would give, so it's no surprise at all to find this forum at odds with the views in, say, The Guardian.

Doctor Who isn't as popular this year as it has been previously, that much is clear, but with all programmes seeing a marked dip in ratings Doctor Who is by no means a failure - which isn't the impression you'd get from reading many of the comments on here. Which is why the BBC tends to disregard fan sites and forums like this when gauging the real reaction to their shows.

The point I'm making is that almost every previewer loves/likes almost every episode. There's very little nuance in the criticism across the board. I just don't see how that is an approximation of the real world, and theoretically it ought to be. Some reviewers should hate an episode just as some viewers will hate an episode. But that's not really what we see.

But most reviewers are also fans, as are most people who post here. So if the fans on here disliked an episode then we should also see reviewers disliking an episode, and we very rarely do.

I just don't think the relationship between reviewing sites and the BBC is entirely healthy. You see someone giving a positive review and next thing there's a video of them interviewing Moffat or Capaldi at some exclusive event.

ETA: anyway, this is off-topic so let's drop it.

I accept that press reviews aren't necessarily representative. But equally I wouldn't say the forums are representative of the average viewer either - there is a very particular type of viewer who comes on here, one who has strong feelings about the show (whether negative or positive). Who's AI scores remain consistently high, and that is surely more representative than a minority of vocal fans on a forum.

The allegations of the Beeb leaning on people to give good reviews are just that - allegations. I know it's a popular conspiracy theory but I've never seen it myself.

I review a number of shows across a number of different channels (mostly BBC and Sky), and - as I have said a few times here - no one has ever attempted to influence my reviews or hint that my access might be revoked. And I wouldn't particularly care if they did - I have a well-paid day job and reviews for Metro are something I do for fun on the side because I like writing. I get paid a small fee, but nothing that's anything more than pocket money. I could probably earn more in bonuses if I was more controversial and slated everything - I choose not to.

I've done just that with a few shows in the past. Funny thing is that if I don't like a show I stop reviewing it, so that tends to skew what I write towards being positibe.

As for the other points you make, I can't speak for other reviewers but I can speak for myself. I've never felt influenced to write positive reviews of shows I didn't like. That's it. Everything else is just us speculating.