I'm lost. One moment, it's the truth that the show isn't so much a hit anymore, now you're saying it's your opinion?

And I apologise, but I find the idea that the show doesn't win NTAs anymore being a big issue a little amusing. NTAs aren't a requirement for success and I find it difficult to take them at face value for obvious reasons.

And this from someone who makes up comments and attributes them to other forum members?

What I have said, Lord Smexy, is that Steven Moffat inherited a hit show from RTD in 2009. Chibnall is not inheriting a hit show from Moffat. He's inheriting a show which is doing well but has lost a big chunk of its viewers in the past couple of years. The show could now reasonably be compared with the likes of Casualty or New Tricks than the likes of Doctor Foster or Sherlock.

And - like it or not - the show winning popular awards was considered important when it was winning them. The fact Peter Capaldi is the only actor to play the Doctor since 2005 not to be shortlisted for the most popular actor award (two years running) at the NTAs is significant and does demonstrate a shift in the public's attitude to the show.

It is interesting I am being accused of overstating my case because I don't like Steven Moffat's Doctor Who. It does strike me there are people on this forum who are so enamoured with Moffat's Who they refuse to acknowledge there is any problem at all.

My hope is that Chibnall will see there are problems and fix them. My opinion is the show does need fixing. There are facts which support my opinion.

And what problem is this? We know for certain there'll be an 11th Series, but with a new showrunner; where the success goes from there we won't know until it happens, but Moffat won't have a role in it.

Like it or not, critical acclaim does stand for something too and that's something the show has seen plenty of recently. I didn't see Series 1-7 get that kind of critical praise, but does that mean there was a problem with those? Success is measured on many levels and commercially Doctor Who is running on more than enough to be secure. Yes, like it or not, Chibnall is inheriting a hit show.

When you come out with comments such as "There are facts which support my opinion" and "if you love the show as much as I do, that's a serious issue that needs addressing" you come across as rather high handed and this is what I mean by projecting your opinion...

And yet the 16 - 34 year olds, that part of the Audience that would be most likely to vote in something like the NTA's, gave it an AI of 85 (joint 5th highest of the season from that group).

Interesting. although I've been told the NTA vote is skewed more by gender than age. Important to remember also that the AI rating is based on those actually watching the show.

When is a thing a hit and when is it not a hit? It's a vague term, at best...

Is it a hit if it's #1? Everyone should agree it has to be, because if #1 is not a hit, then nothing can be.

Is it still a hit at #2? I think almost everyone would say yes, it's still a hit.

In the top 3? How about top 10? Or 50? Or 100?

It's true to say Doctor Who is not the BBC programme with the largest audience. So if your criterion for something being a hit is "it has to be #1", then DW is not a hit. If you define a hit as being in the top 10, then it's still a hit.

Similarly with terms like "significant drop" or "big drop". At what %age or number does a drop become significant or large?

Mulett, do you see the problem using a word like "hit"? Your choice to use the word reflects your opinion of the show (whilst it does nothing to objectively support your opinion). Your comments about (lack of) recent NTA recognition carry more objective weight about popularity (but again, nothing about quality).

If you want to have at least a semblance of objectivity you need to avoid vague terms such as these.

Surely the BBC are making loads more money off Doctor Who today than they used to (especially BBC Worldwide)? Hasn't this rise coincided with Moffatts' time in charge.

You can't judge a show only on UK ratings from mainstream BBC, there are so many other ways to enjoy any show and pure ratings isn't enough. Doctor Who now has real global appeal.

IMO Dr. Who is a huge hit. Here's a couple of quotes from some small time reporting sites (!) ranging from 2011 to last year. Moffat took over running the show in 2008 ... hmmm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/wor...al-review-2015
"Doctor Who S8 was the top selling programme of the year, licensed to 189 territories"

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-bbc-worldwide
"The Doctor Who franchise made the biggest value leap last year with revenue climbing 49%, thanks to significant growth in the US. BBC Worldwide has seen a 45% increase in DVD and download-to-own sales, with Doctor Who the third-biggest seller in the US iTunes chart behind Mad Men and Glee."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b21796e-5...44feabdc0.html
"“We’re seeing the emergence of a global fan base,” says Tim Davie, head of BBC Worldwide, the broadcaster’s commercial arm."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...e-profits.html
"The international success of Doctor Who has seen BBC Worldwide turn to Facebook as a video-on-demand platform in which users will be able to rent episodes of the popular TV series."

The St. John’s Ambulance logo on the outside of the Tardis, definitely.

...

Just read all the references to Doctor Who in this: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/10...iew2014-15.pdf

http://bfy.tw/4B2X

"Our focus on extending fan engagement with premium titles such as Doctor Who, Orphan Black*and Top Gear reached new heights. BBCAmerica.com visitors increased by 9.9% and*Facebook followers doubled to 2.4m. Doctor*Who remains the*number one TV brand on*Tumblr and ranks among*Twitter’s top five most-tweeted about original dramas."

Nope, Chris Chibnall isn't inheriting a hit show at all...

A small chunk, maybe (as it depends how you interpret viewing figures from varying sources).

You're becoming increasingly rant prone and spin prone in your offerings here Mulett. To paraphrase from your favoured era: you're looking a little tired. Maybe it's time you had a break from the show until the factor that vexes you is gone?

You're not fun to read anymore. The fact that you're frequently getting into these little squabbles about fact and opinion should tell you something.

The S9 viewing figures are slightly disappointing, but Chibnall will still be inheriting a hit show. Hopefully returning S10 to a sensible time slot (i.e. around 7pm rather than after 8pm) will help.

As for changes, I'm sure Chibnall will largely want to create his own worlds and characters. I expect some of UNIT will still be around, as their characters who by the nature of the job are likely to still be there.

Moff didn't actually inherit much he could use, other than Jack. If Martha had stayed with UNIT, then yes she could have reappeared in a UNIT episode, but she went off with Mickey to be a freelance alien fighter(?!?) then that seemed much more of a permanent goodbye from the show. Companions leave and don't come back, that's how the show
works. The same applies to family members,.

If RTD had created better UNIT characters, then maybe they could have stayed on, but his era never really had an equivalent of the Brig or Benton. Torchwood had the big characters, and that was very much his creation and baby (and tended to kill its characters off anyway!)

Thanks for that. You have done something very rare on this forum. And thank good you did.

I wish I could remember the post but all i know is it came from one of the usual suspects who make things up to attack Moffat with. They claimed it was an outright lie that the show had increased it's success abroad under Moffat and it was in fact RTD and Tennant who had done this. Total nonsense as any right minded person who has actually been paying attention to reality for the last 7 years knows but you have blown their nonsense out of the water with cold hard facts. Of course no doubt we will now be told that this is irrelevant and doesnt matter and its all about the NTAs etc etc etc.

I don't think it's far fetched to say that the show has been a great success under both RTD and Moffat, by varying degrees, whatever people think of either one.

Funny though, Tom Tit, that I have simply stated my opinion and supported my opinion by facts (such as an 18% drop in viewers in one year). And your response is to make a personal attack on me.

The little squabbles are not started by me, but by forum members who simply cannot tolerate criticisms being levelled at Steven Moffat and who attack any forum member who dares to post something negative. A bit like your post above.

You need to remember that we don't all like Moffat's version of Doctor Who. And when there is evidence that the show is losing viewers and popularity, it is worth reflecting on those issues when a new showrunner is about to take over. The current state of the show is very relevant to this discussion thread.

Not everything Moffat has done has worked and as much as we can discuss what good stuff Chibnall might keep in the show from the Moffat era, we also need to reflect on the bad stuff that we feel should be left behind. That's called a discussion. But if you can't handle a discussion without making personal attacks on forum members you disagree with, Tom Tit, perhaps you shouldn't be on a discussion forum.

Funny, GDK, but I don't see you demanding any of the Moffat fans on here moderate their language when they are raving about the likes of Heaven Sent, Peter Capaldi or (what they see as) the success of the show. Where are your pleas for objective language in those situations? Yet you happily challenge someone who doesn't like this version of Who to downplay their opinion. Hardly objective, GDK.

And for the record, I don't think Doctor Who is a more quality product now than it was when it was winning NTAs. I think RTD and the early Moffat years produced a quality product with popular appeal. The show has simply become less accessible and, as a result, less popular. The quality of the show hasn't changed.

You need to remember that we don't all passionately hate Moffat either and constantly talking about nothing but how much better viewing figures were under RTD won't change that. It's not about "daring to criticise Moffat" and I think you know that, this coming from the forum member who dismissed people who enjoyed Heaven Sent as "rabid fanboys" and yet wants to talk about being attacked.

It's not up to you to decide what other forum members "need" to discuss, particularly over an exaggerrated case of a popularity supposedly rapidly waning that only you seem to see. I think The_Judge_ provided satisfactory resources to show why the BBC seem more than pleased with the show's performance so far.

Yes, this is a forum for discussion, but you seem to believe it's for discussion on your terms, where we all have to accept that the show is in a worrying state and that should take priority over discussing our own actual opinions on the show. I'm afraid to say that's not the case.

BIB: Does this really upset you that much? Do you need us all to rave about how much better the show was ten years ago and about how terrible and unpopular it is now to make you satisfied?

AGAIN, Lord Smexy, I have never used the phrase "rabid fanboys". That was another forum member. PLEASE stop attributing comments to me that I never made.

And I am not deciding what other forum members should discuss. I am simply posting my opinion. No one has to respond to my opinion. But there is a hardcore of you who respond in an immediate and very personal manner which shows a concerted effort to close down actual discussion unless it is on your terms.

I have no problem with people raving about how good they find something. As long as I can then post the opposite should I wish to. It is a shame you and some other forum members are trying so hard to control the content of this forum.

Why don't I try to get this forum back on track by posting the things I would like Chibnall to keep. Believe it or not, there are quite a few:

The Paternoster Gang
The current UNIT team (Kate and Osgood)
Missy
Craig Owens (I would love to see him back again)
The current TARDIS interior
Rigsy (although tricky with the whole Clara thing)
Winston Churchill

I would also like to see:
Martha and Mickey
Torchwood in some form (or at the very least Jack)
Adam from season 1
Luke Smith

Which forum member was that? Another one called Mulett? How about the time you questioned the lack of critical negativity Series 9 received? I suppose success is only important when it conveniently aligns with your opinion.

If posting your opinion is all you want to do, then I would suggest you do exactly that as I can assure you nobody has any issue with that, but do it without trying to enforce to others a feeling of negativity around the show suggesting to them that their admiration for Moffat is irrelevant and worthy of dismissal compared to the perceived lack of success he's achieved.

It was Isambard Brunel. Quote below:


I hope that helps.


I didn't question it, Lord Smexy, I noted it as part of a broader point I was making specifically about Heaven Sent - that it was critically acclaimed (which it was), extremely popular on this forum (which it was) but received the second lowest AI of season 9 (which it did) indicating it wasn't as popular with viewers more generally. A perfectly legitimate point, I would say. A shame you chose to misrepresent what I said.


How you respond to my opinion is your issue, not mine Lord Smexy. But it does seem as though you react very aggressively to opinions which are not positive of Moffat's Who or which find fault with the show in its current form. Again, that's your issue - not mine - but certainly not something that would force me to censor my opinion.

I have now posted a list of things I would like to keep from the Moffat era - perhaps you could move the conversation on by considering those.

You see, I can actually agree with your last paragraph.

If you care to review my posts on this forum I normally plea for objectivity and rationality against emotional rants (and factual errors), whatever the source. I am disappointed that you choose to attack my moderate position in that way. The fact is I don't see any rabid SM fanboys around here, though I have regularly seen accusations of that from the anti SM camp.

I've already expressed my thoughts on the problems with last two series several times so I won't repeat them now.

We can agree that the show's viewing figures have dropped by x% (whatever the number is) for series 9. How that hard data is interpreted is where the point of difference lies. The numbers are the numbers. The response to the numbers comes from one's own personality traits and experiences and is subjective.

To repeat my glass of water analogy in my earlier post: The glass is 90% full is a simple statement of fact. It's also a simple statement of fact to state the glass is 10% empty. Both are inarguable statements of fact. To say the glass is only 90% full (suggesting there's a problem) or only 10 empty (suggesting there's nothing to worry about) is to apply one's subjective opinion to the bare fact.

"Hit", "not hit","big", "small", "significant", "not significant". They're words that are in the first place too vague to mean much (because one person's definition of "hit", or any of those words is different from another's) and in the second place entirely subjective. They are subjective descriptors of the actual data - which is the viewing numbers themselves.