I wish you would stop pretending I have said things I have never said. My post earlier in this very thread points to the very positive reviews the show received during Season 9. I've mentioned this many times in other threads too. Honestly, Lord Smexy, you're terrible sometimes!

I know, and yet you still changed your tune and said it's "something that keeps DS forum members happy rather than family viewers" Not a very consistent argument.

With respect, Lord Smexy, I was responding to the following:


This is something I have never said. I am aware there were very positive reviews during season 9 and have mentioned this many times. I am also aware that, parallel to those positive reviews, viewing figures dropped rather suddenly.

My concern is that the show is not appealing to a family audience anymore and this is why the viewing figures are in decline. I fail to see how that clear and consistent argument can be translated into something that is not consistent.

Might I suggest you spend less time commenting on other forum members and more time arguing your point.

I quoted you saying it, why are you trying rephrase as something that clearly wasn't meant when you said it? :P

I would suggest you trying the same. My point is that the show is still very successful and it's not all doom and gloom at all (and if Capaldi is the problem, it's very unusual that the BBC seem to want to keep him on) but your only rebuttal is things like "Capaldi is only popular with DS forum members/DW magazine readers" when it's easy to see otherwise.

Probably best to accept we're not going to agree on this point!

Okay throwing in my two cents, for what it's worth...

I don't think it's in any way questionable that Peter Capaldi is hugely successful as the Doctor. The evidence is everywhere. Like them or not, both Series 8 and Series 9 have been on the favourable side of critical responses. There's plenty who dislike, and there's those who will now use the argument of comparison to earlier series as justification for their dislike, but there's also an incredible amount of praise heaped on the show as well.

So the show looks to have lost around a million viewers. Any show that lasts nine series (noted I'm not even counting Classic Who here) in the first place is considered a massive success. One that lasts that long and can boast that it's only lost a small fraction of its average viewership is mightily impressive. Better still, the show performs more than fantastically on catch-up services. When you account for the very obvious drop caused by the later scheduling since midway through Series 8 which correlates perfectly with a decline (people seem to pin the decline on Series 9, but it actually happened mid-S8 and there were a few anomalous drops in early Series 9 as a result of the Rugby World Cup and later on also Halloween), the show is still very much in rude health. When you consider that the show can generate enough interest to even contemplate a spin-off (even with fans as cynical as they are), it's doing considerably well. When it can trend worldwide because its lead writer is stepping down, it's something of a big deal. When a supporting character like River Song trends worldwide on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and whatever else just because they've announced she's coming back for a single episode you know it's doing considerably well. When Jenna Coleman leaves and 'Jenna' and 'Clara' both trend, is that the relative obscurity of the show? Or 'Capaldi' after the superb Heaven Sent was broadcast? Is this both a show with struggling popularity and worryingly declining figures also the same show that can sell out a venue like Wembley in London when they decide to host a celebration of the shows score music? That's something most Hollywood films aren't even given!

The argument goes that the show is still considerably important and popular for as long as its capable of generating headlines about viewer rating crises, and behind-the-scenes turmoil. As long as it's doing that, which it still is, it's an indication of mainstream interest. And as the face of Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi is currently the one who shares in some of the credit for that.

RTD had a hard job of picking up a show off the ground that was seen by many as a joke by the late Eighties. He brought it back admirably. Moffat, and I'm hardly his biggest fan, has similarly done an admirable job - a considerably harder job. Sustaining interest can be a lot harder than generating it in the first place. He played the heartthrob card with David Tennant and it paid off. The guy (for reasons I don't quite get myself, but each to their own) is a pin-up kind of guy. Combine him with the also rather popular John Barrowman as they did, and you have a time when the show had a distinct sense of vanity to it. Would Series 2-4 with the same stories have been as successful had Eccleston or Matt Smith led them? And on the flip side is David Tennant actually a comfortably better actor than any of the others? Subjective as it is, I think the answer is simply that he was an attractive lead, with an attractive companion and it played into the hands of mainstream viewers brilliantly. And then we realise that the mixed-reception to Voyage of the Damned doesn't correlate with the fact that it remains the most viewed episode of the last decade. A gain of hell knows how many millions of viewers for that special was no indication that the episode, its quality or indeed its reception was actually through the roof as well. So a decline of even a million on average overall across a decade is certainly no indication of quality or fan approval.

When it comes to awards, I think it's genuinely a great shame that Capaldi remains overlooked. I've more or less enjoyed the show consistently since it came back (Series 7 was a struggle at times) but can concede it isn't always award-worthy stuff. But Series 9, and 8 to an extent, both have moments or whole episodes where Peter Capaldi has shined. Again that's all opinion, but his efforts with Heaven Sent were probably the most worthwhile thing on TV for me last year. A lack of recognition for it is sad, but does not taint how much I loved it, or indeed how popular it was as a whole - it's already considered one of the best episodes of the past ten years. IMDB ranks it as the second best after Blink, whilst its top ten episodes are rather neatly divided with five RTD-era episodes and five Moffat-era episodes.

More on topic it is great that Michelle Gomez has been nominated for an award though. She's made me actually interested in the character of the Master in a way that John Simm couldn't. I'd say Moffat is due credit for that as well. She simply lights up the screen and is so utterly unpredictable and superbly villainous that it's great to see her get some recognition for it. Hopefully come Series 10 Capaldi will have received some recognition for his efforts as well, as I personally think he's a truly remarkable Doctor and an ever-growing global audience would seem to agree.

Congratulations to Michelle Gomez. Fabulous. Marvellous. Splendid.

What this thread oh-so-surprisingly devolved in to? Not so much.

Considering just how huge a success the show was under Tennant and RTD, the fact it's less popular now isn't saying much at all really.

Michelle Gomez Facts:

In the entire 53 year history of Doctor Who, she is:

*The second actor to be nominated for a BAFTA.
*The first female actor to be nominated for a BAFTA
*The first supporting cast member to be nominated for a BAFTA.

Well deserved too. She both lived and owned that role.

Who was the first? And he didn't get it. Sadly. Yeah, i know people know! Still, sidestepping all this Just want to say, as I think she's great in Who and elsewhere...Go, Gomez! This is a *positive* thing.

As for Peter, weeeell, he's already got two BAFTAS. And an Oscar. He'll get over it.

Great news. I think she deserves it.
She's been absolutely perfect as 'The Master'.

I saw Michelle Gomez pop up in an episode of the current series of Gotham.

I think Peter is a wonderful Doctor but the BAFTAs don't consistently nominate this show anyways so I can't say I'm too fussed that he didn't get a nod for it. I am surprised Michelle got one but delighted for her though.

Your misunderstanding of RTD's approach to the character is as bizarre as it is hilarious. His writing for Smith in Sarah Jane Adventures gave the character more light, shade and heart than three years of comic hi-jinx and arm-waving hysteria under Moffat. RTD made the Doctor a relatable, identifiable and yet still mysterious hero which is exactly what he needed to be - and NEEDS to be again now, to appelal to a modern audience) - Moffat has just made him a dull, uninteresting, distant figure again - and that's why the show has drifted out of the public consciousness and back into the shallow waters of cultdown again. It's such a shame. The nomination for Gomez is baffling...her appearance in the two-part Dalek travesty just turned her into a Moffat joke-machine and any resemblance to the Master was entirely missing in action.

I'd like to highlight your use of the word "approach" as I don't doubt that RTD intended to create a great Doctor and managed a very popular one, but there's a difference between approach and execution and executions comes down to the viewer. For me, it just failed.

A lot of it believe is the contradiction to what I love about the character. TV is always full of heroes who often happen to be drop dead gorgeous, snappy, macho, etc. and generally made to be "perfect boyfriend/girlfriend material" Even when you have characters who are intended to be very flawed they're often set up as something everybody fancies.

The Doctor was always there to say "No, that's not what being a hero is all about" He had a multitude of unappealing personality traits and wasn't exactly the most attractive hero, but they still managed to make a lovable and compassionate figure who didn't need sex appeal to be a hero. Even Peter Davison and Paul McGann, who wandered more into a charming and youthful side to the character, managed to evoke that sense that anybody could be extraordinary with the right intentions.

With RTD, whatever the intention, I feel like that was thrown out of the window and Tennant's Doctor was executed as yet another crazy perfect action man who could always get the girl. The compassion was there, but considering how often the scripts talked about how amazing and better than everybody else he was it felt like much of RTD's work to me in saying "you have to be gorgeous and snappy to be a real hero" Again, probably not the intention and obviously not how everybody feels, but I just don't feel the same about Tennant as I do most other Doctors. I don't feel he was a very relatable or mysterious character like you suggest, but that's not "misunderstanding" the approach to the character. Entertainment isn't maths, it's a very subjective form that's supposed to be taken at differing sorts of reaction.

Expect there will be a return at some point. We might even see the daughter who was mentioned in Magicians Apprentice/Witches Familiar.

I just think there's a reason the show was cancelled in 1989 and a big part of it was how antiquated it had become.

Even by the late eighties, the fantasy/sci-fi genre had moved on leaps and bounds and viewers had more sophisticated tastes. The mysterious eccentric persona of the classic Doctor just wasn't enough anymore.

Viewers wanted heroes who were believable and who had heart and depth and that's even more so the case today. You can't just point at the lead character and say "He is your hero and you WILL like and care about him" especially when he has been specifically written to be unlikeable.

Going back to a classic take on the Doctor, a deliberate attempt to make him less likeable, is not (in my opinion) about having a better understanding of the Doctor's character but rather about lacking an appreciation of what a modern TV audience wants.

I do feel the 12th Doctor's character has been extremely self indulgent for both the writer and the actor, and I have no doubt there were great hopes of a BAFTA nomination so they could pull something positive from an increasingly negative scenario.

Perhaps they'll get it right in 2017 and Peter will get both an NTA nomination and a BAFTA nod too.

Congratulations to Michelle Gomez, a well deserved nomination but a shame that Capaldi wasn't nominated or that the show as a whole didn't get more representation.

Also and it's rather off topic and probably not the correct forum for it but it's a shame that Inside Number 9 was snubbed again as well.

For me the 12 Days of Christine and Heaven Sent were two highlights of British TV in 2015 so it's a shame that neither of them were recognised by Bafta. Oh well. I guess my tastes remain at odds with what the great British public (and Bafta award pickers) consider brilliant TV.

Also I think someone mentioned Sherlock up thread but the last full series of that went out in 2014 and the Christmas special was broadcast in 2016 so I'm not sure that either would qualify or this years awards?

Well, we've got the RTD v SM v CC debates to look forward to. That'll mix things up a bit!

That was me and I think you are right - it probably is a timing issue.

Different tastes, not more sophisticated. Personally Tennant's Doctor doesn't come across as a sophisticated character to me but that's subjective. I think the Doctor has always had heart and charm, which is why people fell in love with him in the first place, but he also was more complicated than that, rather than having it bashed over your head about how great he is.

Capaldi's popularity seems to suggest that there's still a place for a classic take on the Doctor in modern television and, more importantly, that people can embrace change on the show rather than being too hung up on one kind of Doctor or one kind of storytelling direction. I don't think the intention was to specifically write him to be "unlikeable" at all but moreso less approachable and a little rash, yet still a compassionate and moral man.

I've never really found Capaldi's Doctor to be unlikeable anyway, more spiky than unlikeable I would say. More akin to Hartnell's early years, Pertwee at times or Tom (when he was in a bad mood with a director or producer).

I much prefer that to rather enforced wackiness with the glasses and guitar etc. I think playing the wacky card suits some actors more than others, just as playing it serious suits some more than others. For me Eccleston was at his best when he played it serious too.

Capaldi initially described his Doctor as 'less user-friendly' and so I think there was an intention that he would not be as easily or obviously likeable as what had come before. I would personally say they write him to be unlikeable but, as Lord Smexy has quite rightly said, that's subjective.

For me, its a repeat of the 6th Doctor only without the awful costume. The idea back in 1984 was to have a Doctor who was initially more prickly and abrasive but who, over a period of years, would gradually reveal softer and more likeable character traits. Of course poor old Colin Baker didn't get the chance to do that in the end (on TV at least).

It feels like history repeating itself with the 12th Doctor, and the rather rushed attempt to redefine his character in Season 9 appeared to show (to me at least) that the writers felt the need to escalate their plans to soften him up.

Despite this, I still feel there was still very little in terms of light and shade for the 12th Doctor. And for me the main problem with an episode like Heaven Sent is that it hinges entirely on whether or not you care for this Doctor and the companion he was mourning. And I didn't care for either.

If it had been the 10th Doctor mourning Donna or even the 11th Doctor mourning Amy then perhaps the episode would have had more impact on me (and perhaps the AI rating would have been better too).

But it is very difficult to care for a Doctor who thinks it is OK to crack jokes whilst innocent people are killed around him. Yes, that sort of dark humour certainly gives the 12th Doctor an edge - but then please don't expect me to care about the wellbeing of a Doctor who appears to care so little about the wellbeing of others.

Perhaps that's why the BAFTA nod passed Capaldi by - beyond the dark humour and the intensity, there simply wasn't enough for an audience to care about.

All completely subjective, of course, but then the selection process for the BAFTAs is also subjective and there has to be a reason Capaldi wasn't short listed. Matt was nominated in 2011 so its not beyond expectations that a Doctor could be nominated.

Hang on a minute so only one previous actor who played the Doctor in the whole 50+ year history of the show has been previously nominated for a BAFTA, and that one previous actor wasn't even the beloved Tennant or T.Baker, yet suddenly it's an issue that Capaldi wasn't nominated?

Anyway I propose a different hypotheses as to why Capaldi was overlooked... I've no idea how TV award judging panels operate so this could be total nonsense but... assuming it works the same way that it does for film awards where the judges are sent DVD's of films that the production companies want to be considered to make sure that they've actually watched the thing. Now for a TV show, unless they've already seen watched it would probably be impractical to expect members of the panel to watch an entire 12 episode series so perhaps the production team only send out select episodes for consideration? Maybe they sent them The Magician's Apprentice/The Witches Familiar to watch, in which Michelle Gomez shines and Capaldi is playing the wacky card, or maybe they sent them the whole series but they only got as far as the first two episodes... So they may not have even seen some of Capaldi's fine work in the Zygon Inversion or Heaven's Sent?

Haven't most of the Doctors had a rather tactless approach to death, though? They even addressed it with the Tenth Doctor over his bad manner of joking around, having a laugh and generally having a good time while people around him are being slaughtered. It's not exclusive to Capaldi or even New Who, he's just a man who's seen so much death he's a little desensitised to it. It certainly isn't a lack of care for the wellbeing of others, as it's been shown he's a very compassionate man despite his cold exterior, even from his first episode. What about The Zygon Inversion, where he wanted both sides to stop the killing and just live in peace, including Bonnie? Or when he saved a young Davros and made sure he got home safely? Breaking the rules to bring back the life of one little girl he hardly knew?

Ultimately, the Doctor's role is to save people and the 12th Doctor continues to do that. But I think this persona lacks the bedside manner of his recent predecessors and that's what I am alluding to.

I know the scenes you are talking about with regards to the 10th Doctor (Tooth and Claw is a good example) but I think his character was defined far more by compassion than anything else, and he always demonstrated a level of regret with each death he failed to prevent. I found the same with Chris and Matt but not with Peter's Doctor.

Its just a suggestion, to be honest, as to why Peter - despite a lot of critical acclaim during season 9 - failed to make the shortlist for a BAFTA. It certainly isn't due to his performance because I think he delivered the 12th Doctor with incredible skill. I just don't personally feel the 12th Doctor offers him enough range - in terms of light and dark - and that may be why he didn't get the nod.

As I said before, though, Michelle's Missy goes from hilarious to terrifying in a heartbeat. And she's the one who's been shortlisted.

There is another consideration, which is that sometimes these panels don't like being told who is going to shortlisted. So perhaps the critical acclaim Peter had during 2015 worked against him, because the BAFTA panel didn't want people to think it was simply following instructions from the critics.