We can't say for sure about the general public's reaction other than ratings (which there is no point going into since on here, anyone who supports strongly supports Moffat will just swat away as unimportant/tainted, etc). Anyway, while you get the impression he is generally well liked, I get the opposite impression that he is not as popular as his predecessors amongst casual viewers.

When I mentioned 'people who have stopped watching under Capaldi' I wasn't neccesarily saying that he was a turn off in general, just that there are always some who will dislike any new doctor enough to turn off and not try the show again until a new doctor starts.


Completely agree. 'Haven't yet seen anyone who thinks he should go actually 'bashing Peter' what I have seen is people, including myself wanting the show to able to visually say loud and clear 'look, it's a new era, If you've never tried before, or didn't like the previous era, here's a reason to try now'.



Defending Peter and/or Moffat if your that way inclined to do so, on merit is one thing, but did you really have to resort to using the tired old trope so often trotted out by those who didn't like Tennant and/or Smith of trying to reduce all the hard work and brilliant acting put into the role by claiming that they only got more viewers because of 'teenage girls fancying them'.

Quite honestly, If, when Capaldi does leave, there was a further ratings drop, how would you feel if I, in trying to defend the 13th Doctor just said 'the only people who have stopped watching since Capaldi's time are middle aged women who are irritated because they fancied their 'silver fox' eye candy and now he's gone.

I've never met, seen, or heard of a real life person who watched because just solely because they fancied a particular doctor, then stopped after they left for the same reason. Likeability of incarnation and stories? sure, but never looks.

I've only ever heard such a thing even claimed on this forum by strongly pro Moffat, anti RTD era type posters, trying to discredit the huge mainstream popularity of Tennant, and now seemingly even bunging Smith who they used to support in with that as though discrediting the most recent of doctors will somehow change anything

Also, If your really going to try and claim that the ratings in years gone by, versus ratings now, are purely down to 'teenage girls' then all i'll say is that teenage girls must make up a substantially larger percentage of the population than anyone realised.

And whether you like it or not, I have. It's not an attempt to discredit the hard work or popularity of people like Tennant, as I also know plenty of people who loved him and RTD for other reasons (and personally I'm a huge fan of some of Tennant's other acting roles) so you can label it a "tired old trope" if you like, but I was only sharing my experience with peoples' reactions to the show. Are you suggesting I'm lying?

I was a teenager when RTD was running the show, so I did see first hand a lot of teenagers' reactions to the show, and while there were a lot of people who loved the show for their own reasons (the ones who weren't afraid to be bullied for admitting they watched it), there were also girls who only watched it because they fancied the lead actor and have admitted they don't like the show anymore because they don't fancy the lead (particularly pronounced when Capaldi was announced). I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's my genuine account of how it was from people I knew. Of course, I'm probably just making it up to fuel my "pro-Moffat, anti-RTD agenda" (not sure why it's Moffat fans vs RTD fans again).

And no, I am certainly not trying to claim that ratings are lower only because of teenage girls. You're using strawman arguments again.

I do personally think the re-imagining of the Doctor as a romantic hero was a key reason the show came back as such a hit. Certainly not the only reason, but a key reason.

I am not sure the show would have become the success it was if we'd had a more traditional 'classic' Doctor cast in 2005.

I think Matt Smith's Doctor, although young and handsome, was much more in the mold of the classic Who "ancient eccentric", and Capaldi even more so. And I just don't personally feel that is resonating as strongly with today's viewers.

You'll have to excuse my confusion in trying to figure out your view, but when you clearly state something in one post, and then completely deny it in the next post, it does make it a little hard to keep track.

On a personal level, I was more interested and involved in Doctor Who during RTD's era, and slowly became less engaged during the Matt Smith years before switching back on for Capaldi.

But even allowing for my changing tastes, I suspect that the main reason for this is that it's very, very hard to remain as intensely committed to a show after 11 years as you were at the beginning.

How much more is this true for the casual fan? Perhaps I'm missing something ,but there is nothing particularly unusual about a show that has been on air for 11 years (as well as 26 years previous to that) slowly losing viewers. No show can go on for ever and sustain high interest. We can criticise Moffat; we can criticise Capaldi; we can think creatively and change the tone and do all sorts of things, but ultimately Doctor Who is heading towards the point where it will be rested for a few years.

There was a reason I started that sentence with "in my own personal experience": because I know and acknowledge that there are other reasons people may have stopped watching. Stop reading what you want to see and start reading what is actually there.

A shame, I think. I always loved the classic Doctors because they made for a very unique and interesting hero you don't see much of, at least not to that effect. Eccleston managed to retain at least some of that; but Tennant could have just been any other typical hero character, which wasn't very enticing in my opinion. Smith managed to bring back some of what made the character so fascinating and Capaldi topped that. I think it would be a shame to sacrifice that just to get the most popularity.

In my experience, in the way you used it, is just another way of saying 'I think' or 'in my opinion'.

If I stated something, even with the words 'in my experience' or 'in my opinion' and then you replied making a good argument that it wasn't the case, then I replied to you saying I never thought it was in the first place, I'm sure you'd surely point out the contradiction.

Well, thank you for trying to enlighten me on what I meant, but I assure you I know what I mean by what I say. And what I mean by what I say was not "I think" or "in my opinion". I even acknowledged in my post that other people have experienced it differently from me.

For the sake of not going round in circles on this and other people not having to read off subject arguing, let's just put it down to a misunderstanding.

Back on subject, if your comments about 'teenage girls' were something you personally experienced, but not something you believe is actually accountable for the ratings drop, then it's no more valid to the subject than you telling me sharing my personal experience of the show being overwhemingly more popular under RTD is.

Yet I wasn't using it as psuedo-evidence to try and judge how the show is doing. Someone asked about how many people liked Capaldi, I gave my two cents on where it is round my area. But like I said, I acknowledged that it's not the same for everybody.

Just as I do when I mention the RTD era, compared to now, and why I perceive things the way I do based on my experiences of friends and family.

If you say so, it just doesn't seem so much of "this is how I perceive things" as "this is how it is and Moffat fans are in denial".

The thing that makes me most dispare is when you have great actors playing The Doctor but give them absolute garbage to perform. Some of the stuff that Peter has had to do have been so dire, I cannot bare to watch them again even though I have all the DVD's. The same goes for Tennant and Smith. That's not to say that a lot of the "classic" stuff is also cringeworthy when seen again.

Agree with this, i don't think their has been a bad actor to ever take the role. Like Colin Baker would probably be the best Doctor with his acting ability, but was given terrible scripts.

There is no problem with Capaldi, you give him a good script and he'll do very good.

Agree in principle, but, re Colin Baker, if he has any acting ability he must be a good actor because he keeps it well hidden.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but mine is "yes, Moffat fans are in complete denial".

You miss the point. An actor doesn't have to be world class to make a success of the Doctor. IMO. They just need to "get" the character, so to speak.

Colin Baker isn't world class. Nor is Tom Baker. Nor is Smith, or McCoy. But all of these actors "got" the part, they were all suitable for it. The right level of weirdness, the right look, the right sort of performance.

Baker WAS suitable, he COULD have done really well. But the material let him down.

Yes, agree totally. The 6th Doctor is actually my guilty pleasure. I regularly find myself watching Colin's stories ahead of the other classic Doctors'. The stories are generally OK rather than good, but I just love Colin's portrayal. If only the writing had been better (and, of course, the costume).

The BF Audios prove Colin was suitable for the role

Was going to say, BF confirmed what was pretty much obvious: Colin Baker wasn't he problem.