Even though that's clearly not what I said, but i guess that's what you get for interrupting somebody's train of thought here...

The problem is quite a few things, such as the many breaks the show has faced since S6 has definitely taken steam from people, especially casual viewers who would have stopped watching the show altogether because of this.

Another issue is advertising, its terrible no more to say about that.

And then the storytelling. For a while now the quality has been very inconsistent and the stories have gotten incredibly predictable for the most part. So there is little to intrigue people. There are too many earth stories and predictable outcomes to stories which has dropped the anticipation and i'd say most importantly fear. Everything feels safe with no consequences.

Anywho that is my opinion on the subject which can be easily fixed by actually showing off the entire universe and not being stuck on Earth, better advertising and a showrunner which is 100% dedicated to the show.

It's 11 years since Doctor Who first returned - that's an awfully long time, certainly in modern terms; certainly a long time for interest in the show to remain the same. I mean, X-Factor is hardly essential viewing in the way it might have been 7 years ago, and it's the same with other shows. Right now, the only essential viewing for me is Match Of The Day - but then I'm a Leicester City fan.

I'm also a Star Trek fan, but having gorged on it year after year in the 1990's, I was fed up with the whole thing. I don't quite feel that way about Doctor Who, as the episode count and regularity of series is significantly less than Star Trek. But still, look at the numbers: 115 episodes; 11 Christmas Specials; 3 other specials; an anniversary movie; plus countless prequels; extras; spin-offs etc; how much further can the Doctor Who brand be exploited? It wouldn't surprise me if the show lasts another 4 years or so - the duration of Chris Chibnall's tenure as showrunner - and then is put on hiatus indefinitely.

Ah, that's anecdotal evidence for you. Totally unreliable. I teach 11-18 year olds and my sixth form tutor group has Whovians and this year I've had such interest in y7 that I relaunched the Doctor Who club. We meet every Thursday and watch classic episodes mainly. We've worked our way through each Doctor up to Six, having watched Attack of the Cybermen this week.

Also, my local FP store in Sheffield is awash with DW merchandise as is the flagship store in London.

I am by no means a social media expert so I freely admit that this could be a load of old twaddle but the quote at the bottom of this article appears to indicate that there is still much interest in Doctor Who:

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/doctor-...idnt-know-her/

Well thats pretty positive news...

So, a few people are mentioning that.... it HAS been 11 years after all.

However...

I often wonder how the BBC manage to churn out a programme such as Casualty. Year after year, series after series. We dont ever hear 'well its been running for 11 years now so its getting tired and needs a rest'

Now, Casualty is a drama... not a soap (which churn out 52 weeks of the year relentlessly). Im no expert here, as Ive never watched Casualty, but am I right in thinking its been going for about 30 years without a break? Im not sure how many episodes per series it gets... and I know that the budget must be a fair bit lower than for Dr Who...

But given the right amount of emphasis, and no over-reliance on a single 'show runner' then a 13 episode series at the same time every year doesnt seem too hard really. Of course with constant changes of showrunner etc I'm sure the quality would dip and it would be all over the place story-wise!

Fair enough - that's cleared that up.

But what you do hear is that the scripts these days are awful, and far too soapy (concentrating on the love lives of the staff rather than accidents & emergencies related to the patients).


It gets around 46 episodes per year. It takes a short break towards the end of July, and sometimes gets bounced for sporting events. To all intents & purposes, it's a year-round drama or, as the BBC themselves class it, a continuing drama (aka a soap).

As for budgets, I have found this from 2011, covering costs for 2009/10:


http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1452433

It is because Casualty and other soaps are continuing dramas that the costs are relatively low (sets & studios in constant use, production staff assigned long-term etc).

For comparison, the tariffs for BBC dramas are such that one hour of a quality prime-time drama on BBC one will cost between £700,000 and £900,000, with premium dramas coming in at around £1 million or more.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...9kxxSQ&cad=rja


Each episode of the recent Night Manager drama cost £3 million!

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/13/tom-hi...eries-5748990/

The recent War & Peace adaptation was said to have cost £2 million per episode.

Much as admire Capaldi as the Doctor I just get the feeling that next year could be a low point in modern Who with regards to ratings and interest. The future is very much resting on the next regeneration, the next casting is hugely important imo. Its got to make a positive wave of interest and anticipation, and get people beyond the core audience excited again. Its not the recent actors fault but time has dulled the shows image to a degree, something needs to fire it up again.

How were those two drama's able to command such high budgets? Is it because the production was shared with other companies?

It would be lovely if Doctor Who could get similar budgets, especially since it earns the BBC Worldwide so much money in sales.

Yes, I believe so.


I think that it already costs around £1million per episode (and that's for 45 or 50 mins rather than an hour), and in some cases more (where BBC America also chipped in).

A good point.

But I dont think 'time' has much to do with it. If the quality and interest and consistency and diversity was maintained then it would have no problems.

Yes, kids grow up over 10 years and unlike some of us die-hard adults who will always watch, sometimes an enthralled 10 year old will not remain so at 20!

I think its a bit of a victim of priority and scheduling. This 2016 gap seems wholly avoidable (if Mr Moffatt stepped aside earlier knowing he couldn't get a series to air in 2016). Also, point of the thread... highly damaging under the circumstances.

It is what it is, but given the situation it doesnt feel like there are many mitigating actions being taken. We just have to wait, and hope that the audience remains in 2017 and beyond.

The programme has also suffered something of an identity crisis of late - insofar as it doesn't know whether it is an adult drama or family viewing - the scheduling has certainly not helped, nor has the shifting tone in stories. It needs to sit in one camp or the another - because frankly the viewership I suspect is confused.

The tone of the show has definitely changed and I think season nine is a great example of the identity crisis you are referring too. There's something fundamentally gloomy about the show at the moment, and it feels more and more as though its being written by whovians for whovians - where as during the RTD era (and, to a degree, during the Matt Smith years too) it always felt as though it was being written with the whole audience in mind.

I really hope the hiatus is a chance to reset the show back to what made it successful in the first place. I will be so upset if it returns and continues along the same path.

I agree with the sentiments in your post, but regarding that last bit, the problem is we pretty much know that there will be no 'reset' after this year. The show will return in 2017 with Moffat's same old style, and with Capaldi at the helm.

It's the 2018 series which will be a reset, and the best hope for reinvigorating interest, particularly amongst those who have grown bored/frustrated/stopped watching during the Moffat era.

Its why it's a shame that if the hiatus had to happen, that it didn't happen after Moffat's last series, when there will be a brand new tone and new idea's being brought to the show, and very possibly a new face in the lead role.

As it stands now, when advertising the 2017 series, they may as well just play that clip of Capaldi saying 'same old, same old' but cut in clips of Bill instead of Clara, because I doubt that 'Bill' whether she is good or bad, will have that much impact on the overall feel.

The show does need to bring back the fun, especially if it wants to attract younger viewers. It must do this because the younger viewers are the show's future and when they grow up they'll be the ones encouraging their kids to watch.

I would not underestimate the Moff's ability to change the tone again, after all, he ran the show during the Matt Smith era too. I'm hopeful that he is well aware of issues and will introduce the necessary changes in his last season in charge.

Didn't have a problem with the tone of S9, it was no more gloomy than Tom Baker's earlier years or many of Troughton and Pertwee's stories. Darker works for Doctor Who, imo, and stories like Genesis of the Daleks, Caves of Androzani and Inferno being some of the show's heights. Personally it says enough to me that New Who stories that have stood out for me are Midnight, The Waters of Mars, The Doctor's Wife, etc.

I think S9 had a strength over the other series in that it's consistently scary, where New Who has often tried to make the show less scary and more "emotional" and I just don't think Doctor Who is very good at emotion for the most part. I want to feel my spine shiver, not be told I have to cry because the Doctor's one true love is gone.

The issue with S9 was utterly horrific advertising.

Then entire advertising team should have been sacked. Somehow i doubt that after the introduction of Bill on Match of The Day.

I know, I don't know if the BBC has gotten a little cocky that they feel they don't need to bother much, or what. Back in September a lot of people were agitated that they hadn't even realised the new series had started, and that's poor advertising.

I'm not sure I would agree about the advertising - the show seemed to get as much as it usually did. I do think the 'same old, same old' was poorly judged, though.

I think a lot of viewers simply chose not to return for season 9 after watching season 8, and I personally think Capaldi's Doctor is a key problem when matched with the rather funless writing and unlikeable companion (Clara).

I did quite enjoy the Christmas episode, however. It had some of the silliness and heart that the show's lost of late. And the clip of the new companion seemed to hold some of that too. So perhaps Moffat's final season will be a step-change from 8 and 9.

I agree the advertising was one of the "real world" problems, alongside the scheduling issues, that contributed to the lower viewing figures for series 9. Not so much the quantity of advertising, but the "same old, same old" phrase was poor and would have turned off any main stream viewer who hadn't enjoyed season 8.

For me the gloom was that the stories seemed to have a more serious tone generally (except when they imposed some sort of mid-life, back to my youth, crisis on the Doctor, which didn't work for me). Most seemed to foreshadow Clara's demise/departure.

Much as I like Clara, it was a mistake not to have killed her off in Last Christmas.

The Husbands of River Song was much more like it, even with the tinge of sadness, knowing what would happen on River's next trip!

I think the humour's still there, the show just stops to take itself seriously when it feels it needs to, which is refreshing when so many movies and shows seem to have a requirement to be "funny" and have to stop every five minutes to shove in a joke to try and make the viewer laugh.

I wasn't a fan of Husbands of River Song... just another one that was too silly and cheesy and had to stick to the "love story" approach. The humour wasn't so much witty as it was cringe and force. I guess you have to let it off the hook in some ways because Christmas specials are generally sillier, but it's not one that's stuck with me like Zygon Inversion or Heaven Sent have.

I'd have guessed you wouldn't have enjoyed the slight romance feel to that one based on your previous postings on the subject of romance and the Doctor.

If I was to narrow it down still further, I'd say a part of my issue with series 8 and 9 is that the Doctor doesn't seem to be enjoying his life much at the moment, whereas 10 and 11 (even 9, on occasion) very much did. They had serious adventures but still managed to have a good time in between.

All just a matter of subjective taste in the end though. I'm just as guilty of projecting my thoughts of the show onto the reasons for a lower audience last time as anyone else.

The problem begins and ends squarely with Moffat. He's played out. He's, at best, a two or three trick-pony and he's playing the same games over and over. It's not even a question of the show being "too dark" ,it's that the stories are just dull and uninteresting with none of the visual zest and dynamism of the RTD years. Moffat's idea of an action sequence is to have someone hanging off the TARDIS - it's all he can think of. The show should be witty but not "funny and full of one-liners" and Moffat, as a sitocm writer first and foremost, can't write econversations, he has to write in smart, snidey quips and wisecracks - you can see it again in the terrible dialogue in the Bill clip which was pretty much Amy or Clara by another name. He has no filter, no ability to do what's in the show's best interest because he's too busy amusing himself and rewriting arcane bits of mythology which the general audience know nothing about and care less.. Season ten is best written off and we can all come back the year after and see if Chibnall can right the sinking ship. Personally I think the damage has been done and there's too much water been let in but we shall see...