There was definitely a time between S3- and S4 where it did cross over into becoming 'water-cooler' TV. I recall people in the offices i was working in at the time, men and women of all ages but the thing that they shared was they definitely weren't your typical Doctor Who fans- all talking about 'that episode with the Angels'. It was genuinely a 'did you see it moment?' and Doctor Who had a fair few of those back in the day. But every show that has success has that period. People discover it and talk about it and then if they're not the kind of fans who go on forums they just quietly get on with watching it. Happened with Broadchurch. Didn't hear a peep about it much during S2 but during S1 it was another of those 'are you watching that?' shows. Poldark is a more current one. The fuss quietens down after a while because whats their to talk about? Its not new anymore. Doesnt mean its any worse. Doesnt even mean its less popular. Everything has a potential moment where it flairs up and grabs the national consciousness but it fades.

Bravo! But careful saying that. You'll get accused of snobbery. But as I posted above, someone like Mark Lawson who is highly respected and has no bias one way or the other clearly thinks its good TV as do many, many more. I remember posting a summary of reviews for Heaven Sent which got totally ignored by those who were doing the 'WORST THING EVER' routine. As, I say, the Sherlock threads are just as bad. I will never forget it but during the last series someone posted in all seriousness that not only was Sherlock not very good, it was the WORST thing ever made on british television and that it should cause us shame internationally as a nation because of how bad the show is. And these people expect to be taken seriously?!?!?

I took a peek at the Sherlock thread sometime after the episode finished and quickly gave up reading it. People are entitled to their opinions and all, but Jesus, the way some of them talk they sound like their parents never hugged them. I'd be interested to hear why people didn't enjoy it, but I couldn't find out amongst all the "worst thing ever" comments.

There was a lot of accusing Moffat of trying too hard to be clever, a complaint I've never understood. Perhaps some people are just intimidated by TV you have to actually pay attention to instead of jusy typing away on forums?

I think Moffat is on occasion guilty of trying to be too clever for his own good. But I prefer to see that as a writer challenging himself (and sometimes failing) rather than just taking the easy route. It seems to really wind some people up though, as if Moffat is mocking them or something and thinks he's a total genius. I just don't get that from him at all- what I see is someone who wants to test himself and wants the audience to go with him. Thats why I love him. Even when he gets it wrong- and god knows he has- at least he was aiming for something different. Not just giving people what they want. And when he does get it right? He creates episodes and ideas that will endure even beyond the shows lifetime (The Weeping Angels).

I think its about how you choose to interpret it and says as much about you as a person - if you somehow feel spoken down to or insulted by Moffat then its your issue not his. All I see is a great, sometimes frustrating, writer doing what he loves. Same with RTD. People get very caught up in these funny ideas about agendas and ulterior motives when really its just a writer doing what they know best. Moffat didnt get handed a seat at the top table. This isnt the House of Lords. He earned it. What he didnt earn is the bizarre and at times worryingly personal levels of abuse and ire he seems to provoke.

And I have no problem with those that criticise his work. I do it. And without puffing up her no doubt already bloated ego ( i bet she has an oil painting of herself hung above the mantelpiece...) Granny McSmith is the perfect example of someone who takes each episode on its merits- she will go from hating an episode to celebrating another because she bases it purely on the episode itself. I don't agree with her on much of what she says about Moffat but its clearly just a take it as it comes approach. Not this odd and bitter hatred which some exhibit.

Not a particularly mature response. Nor do you have any FACTS of your own to give me, I see....


Glad I'm not the only one!

I admit, I'm a big fan of Capaldi's doctor, he's my favourite doctor since the return in 2005. However I also immensely enjoyed both Eccleston's and Tennant's doctors. Indeed, although he was my least favourite, I liked Matt Smith's doctor. So I don't think this is bias - I simply don't see DW as being in anything other than rude good health for a 12 year old show.

Ah you mean Season 31.

There is definitely exaggeration about the quality of the show as clearly many still think it is boss. However maybe I am wrong in saying this as there isn't actually proof but I feel the direction the show has taken past couple seasons or so has isolated a decent faction of the audience. Particuarly those who are quite young and I also feel that there isn't a new generation coming in watching the show because of this. Personally I don't see the show has hyped or big as it once was but I wouldn't go so far too say that it is dieing as some do. I do think interest has definitely dipped though. This is why it seems we are going back to lighthearted stories and what seems to be a comedic duo of companions incoming to recapture the lost audience.

From the overall gist of this page I must be in unusual circumstances.

I'm a hardcore fan who watched series 2-5 (when it was at its peak in my opinion) episodes multiple times. Often 3-4 times in the following week, and more later. Only the very weakest episodes only got a couple of watches. The key eps around the 50th I did the same for.

Capaldi's era - almost none. It's 'enough' for me to see them once. The Husbands I tried rewatching a number of times but the ridiculous slapstick 'toss the head in the bag around' stopped me short every time until recently, when I finally managed to get to the only interesting/well-considered part of the episode - Darillium.

Who used to be must-watch TV for my dad (he'd leave important family events early, urging me to drive us home in time to catch the start). I'd say he fell properly in love in series 2 and that lasted until 5. He started getting disillusioned in 6, and pretty much gave up in 7. He stuck with the Xmas specials but this year didn't care, even though I've recorded it and said he must catch up, 'it's really good'. Completely apathetic.

One of my best (and snootiest critics of 'non-intelligent' TV) friends found Who absolutely essential around series 4 - so much so he planned his nights out around it. I don't think he does so now!

For a few years up to the 50th my nieces and nephew knew of Doctor Who as a national institution and were looking forward to the age when they would be allowed to watch. Not any more - they've lost all (secondary) interest. They used to buy me the books and mugs etc. Now they just shrug their shoulders when I mention it.

I'm honestly surprised viewing figures haven't fallen further.

Thank you (I think -but when did you see my mantelpiece? )



I would point out that it was Moffat writing badly that came before the general dislike. Most people were disposed to like Moffat because he'd been so good under RTD's showrunnership.

The stuff he came up with was disappointing; people felt let down. That's when they went off him in droves. It wasn't that they decided to hate him for no reason, and didn't give him a chance.

I just re-watched Invasion of the Dinosaurs tonight. You can have a good drama with a lot of funny moments as 20th Century Doctor Who exemplified in that serial. There was a lot of good and funny moments in that serial along with a lot of good drama.

To be fair, the "Highest individual ratings for an episode in 2 years includes maybe 15 episodes and the vast majority of those were the dreaded Series 9 which is the cause of this thread. That is a low, low bar. Also, with no Doctor Who on for an entire year, according to the proponents of "resting the show", shouldn't the ratings have been much higher due to popular demand?

My experiences echo yours. I have friends who used to buy all of the DVDs/Blu-Rays and they will still buy the old releases when they find them, but they not only will not buy any of Moffat's era, they flat out will not watch an episode of his. The whole Clara Who bit, The Leaf of Doom, The Moon is an Egg, The Impossible Girl, etc. etc. etc. stuff broke them. They bought everything up until Series 6, they watched through Series 7 and 8, but they have flat out refused to watch any of Series 9 or the last two Christmas Specials. And these are friends who are watching through the entire history of Doctor Who with me on a 15 year project (we are nearly six years in and are now on Tom Baker). Their attitude is that they will pick up the show once Moffat is gone and that they will only suffer through those episodes when we reach them in another 10 years. And this is not one or two friends, but at least a dozen. Moffat has destroyed the show for them (and for me, although I still watch the new stuff and buy the DVDs). That is the audience that has left.

The real proof in the pudding will be to see whether or not the viewing figures go up once Chibnall is the showrunner during Series 11 and 12.

Recorded it but still not got round to watching the Christmas special yet. Had the opportunity but prefered to watch other stuff in my spare time. This would never have happened during the during the ecclestone, Tennant era when I couldn't wait to watch If missed live.

I have continuously referenced the critical acclaim that the show has had over the past few years. The problem I have is what I see as the disconnect between those critical reviews and the audience enjoyment of the show.

Heaven Sent got amazing reviews but had the second lowest AI of season 9. Even the truly appalling Sleep No More (lowest AI in years) failed to get a stronger critical review than 'not the strongest episode of the year'. And it is important to remember than 1.25m viewers didn't come back for season 9, and the show/lead actors are no longer getting shortlisted for popular awards (never mind actually winning).

The critical acclaim is also somewhat distorted by the fact that many of the TV critics are also Steven Moffat fans. As an example, The Guardian's Dan Martin writes most of that paper's Doctor Who reviews and has also written whole articles about his love for Moffat's writing, even falsely crediting Moffat for making Doctor Who an international hit.

And I don't personally feel we need to look to TV critics to make 'well reasoned points'. I've often seen on this very forum some beautifully crafted, passionate and well reasoned reviews of episodes, critiques of entire seasons or praise/criticism of particular writers (including RTD and Moffat).

Just because someone writes for a paper or online, doesn't mean their point of view is any more valid than anyone on here.

Yeah that time was must see TV. Everything else would have got shoved aside for Who.

That whole 'Season 1/5/31' nonsense still makes me SO angry!! lol

Exactly that, especially when certain reviews don't even talk about the episode or film. Honestly i've seen reviews of movies and such which literally gave it a perfect score because it looked nice.

I think to an extent we should listen to the reviewers - its how I do pick shows sometimes after they've aired to see what the general reaction was, but as you say, we the viewers are just as able to give as good a review as them.

I do feel there is a little bit of a disconnect with the shows perception between viewers and reviewers though. Obviously reviewers aren't watching it at the same time as us, they get the early copies to watch, and for that to keep happening, they have to build good relationships with the BBC et all don't they?

I can't just make a contact with someone in the BBC for example and say send me preview copies of shows. Relationships with publications and the BBC have been made over a number of years and obviously the intent is to maintain them.

I'm not trying to use that as an excuse, but it can probably cloud the review somewhat slightly in that they can be overtly negative as they ruin relationships with those sending out early copies of programmes.

It's something to think about, well it is to me anyway.

Of course, we all see the show differently, but the reaction in reviews to how I'm personally experiencing the show has never been so far apart at present and that does feel odd.

Absolutely. Two of my best friends from school are (or were, as one of them went on trial for the phone hacking stuff and I think has had to change career) very high up in the national press. One's the chief economics editor at one of the biggest papers. He didn't even do economics A-level lol.

Another friend used to do nationally published games reviews as a sideline. The thing is, he often didn't even play the games. He just got the general reaction from other writers and then, because he's an engaging writer, would write good copy and make up a score.


I don't know how or if it makes a difference, but I think it's pretty obvious from heavy pointers in much of his work that Moffat is a Freemason. They don't tend to criticise each other too much publicly, not suggesting that's the 'reason' - just saying and throwing that one out there as a possible factor.

Having met with Freemasons in my work, I can't say that Moffat comes across as one at all. There's not exactly a certain 'look' or anything, but he certainly doesn't come across as one.

I don't really get any pointers from a potential Freemason link in his work either if I'm honest....

The second quote is why people accuse you of the first. You just cannot accept any criticism of your Lord Moffat. There were lots and lots of posts in the Sherlock thread explaining WHY people didn't like it but you just casually ignore all these and pretend they didn't exist. And your condescending views that people who don't like Moffat's work are too thick to understand it really don't help support your viewpoints.

Well, Freemason is a new one!

I would rather take the opinions of genuine Doctor Who fans than someone who is paid to write things about TV for money. Why should this person's opinion be any more worthwhile than anyone else's?

This!! All you Moffat fanboys, just read this and try and understand!

I know loads of Freemasons too, most of them at the lower levels, and they just strike you as ordinary folk. If you've researched the higher level occult stuff though some of it's very blatant in Moffat's Who. I'm actually really surprised I've never read it mentioned on here.