Definitely the lowest AI since Love and Monsters which had 76. Lowest of the new Who era. But this era of Doctor Who has so far not gone past 85 compared to other series since 2005.
Dr Who Ratings Thread (Merged)
253 of 288
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“Definitely the lowest AI since Love and Monsters which had 76. Lowest of the new Who era. But this era of Doctor Who has so far not gone past 85 compared to other series since 2005.”
“Definitely the lowest AI since Love and Monsters which had 76. Lowest of the new Who era. But this era of Doctor Who has so far not gone past 85 compared to other series since 2005.”
I think every episode except two has scored 80 or higher since 2005 so for us to be getting only 81 halfway through Capaldi's second series is pretty poor, IMO. Last week's only scraped 82.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“Definitely the lowest AI since Love and Monsters which had 76. Lowest of the new Who era. But this era of Doctor Who has so far not gone past 85 compared to other series since 2005.”
“Definitely the lowest AI since Love and Monsters which had 76. Lowest of the new Who era. But this era of Doctor Who has so far not gone past 85 compared to other series since 2005.”
By this era do you mean Capaldi's era or Moffat's era?
Because yes Capaldi's era has seen lower AIs, but the Matt Smith era didn't see a drastically lower AI.
Edit: The Matt Smith era actually saw a higher AI than the RTD era but yeah Series 8 and 9 will really have dragged the Moff's average down.
Originally Posted by Whovian1109:
“By this era do you mean Capaldi's era or Moffat's era?
Because yes Capaldi's era has seen lower AIs, but the Matt Smith era didn't see a drastically lower AI.
Edit: The Matt Smith era actually saw a higher AI than the RTD era but yeah Series 8 and 9 will really have dragged the Moff's average down.”
“By this era do you mean Capaldi's era or Moffat's era?
Because yes Capaldi's era has seen lower AIs, but the Matt Smith era didn't see a drastically lower AI.
Edit: The Matt Smith era actually saw a higher AI than the RTD era but yeah Series 8 and 9 will really have dragged the Moff's average down.”
Yes, I'm talking about the Capaldi era.
Let me remind you lot of series 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs
Originally Posted by david_Robinson:
“Let me remind you lot of series 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs”
“Let me remind you lot of series 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs”
Apart from the very highest and very lowest AIs, we're not far off that now.
Originally Posted by david_Robinson:
“Let me remind you lot of series 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs”
“Let me remind you lot of series 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_%28series_1%29
Rose: 81
The End of the World: 79
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 81
World War Three: 82
Dalek: 84
The Long Game: 81
Father's Day: 83
The Empty Child: 84
The Doctor Dances: 85
Boom Town: 82
Bad Wolf: 85
The Parting of the Ways: 89
So yeah, the very first series of New who had some very low AIs”
The first series did end on a high. The lowest AI of new Who was in series 2 with Tennant (Love and Monsters). Two series in with Capaldi, shouldn't have the audience got used to him and numbers go up a bit?
The first five episodes in 2005 had amended AIs, released after the initial overnights. These were:
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.
Originally Posted by TomSpilsbury:
“The first five episodes in 2005 had amended AIs, released after the initial overnights. These were:
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.”
“The first five episodes in 2005 had amended AIs, released after the initial overnights. These were:
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.”
They based these on consolidated ratings then? Do you know how much the current AI scoring system has changed compared to 2013? It can't be that much I'd assume.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“6.56m for The Girl Who Died.”
“6.56m for The Girl Who Died.”
Better time shift than several of the recent episodes.
Puts it 11th for the week on BBC1. Highest final rating so far (beats ep 1 but 0.02m) but no episode yet has out rated the lowest one from last series (6.71m).
28 day figures for ep 1 aren't worth getting excited about - only adds 0.3m which is comparably average for drama programs so doesn't really change the state of affairs much.
Originally Posted by TomSpilsbury:
“The first five episodes in 2005 had amended AIs, released after the initial overnights. These were:
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.”
“The first five episodes in 2005 had amended AIs, released after the initial overnights. These were:
Rose: 76
The End of the World: 76
The Unquiet Dead: 80
Aliens of London: 82
World War Three: 81
After that point, the AI system changed, and the 'overnight' AIs became the only figures issued.”
My understanding is that those aren't amended AIs, but a result of parallel AI systems running for a while. The figures you quote being from the old system, and the other figures, the ones we are used to, being from the new system (from Gfk).
Of course there are timeshift included AIs produced now, which the BBC say tend to produce higher scores, but we don't see them. I think it was only a couple of years ago (maybe three or four?) that Gfk started asking panellists to score things they timeshifted.
Originally Posted by Horza's Drone:
“I think every episode except two has scored 80 or higher since 2005 so for us to be getting only 81 halfway through Capaldi's second series is pretty poor, IMO. Last week's only scraped 82.”
“I think every episode except two has scored 80 or higher since 2005 so for us to be getting only 81 halfway through Capaldi's second series is pretty poor, IMO. Last week's only scraped 82.”
Surely the AI isn't a trend, it's given each week on the episode's merits so it doesn't matter how far through the series we are? Are you suggesting it *will* go down, but shouldn't be doing so this early? Also, did last week's "scrape" 82? You seem to have added an emotive element suggesting it struggled to reach that number which I assume is not based on any inside information. 82 is still a good figure and let's be honest, the last pair of episodes have not exactly been fan favourites (looking at the polls on here alone), so it's no shock to see that reflected slightly in the lowers AI scores.
Has anyone created a line graph of some description showing final ratings and overnights on the same chart? I'd be interested to see the trend from Rose all the way through to the most recent.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“6.56m for The Girl Who Died.”
“6.56m for The Girl Who Died.”
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“Better time shift than several of the recent episodes.
Puts it 11th for the week on BBC1. Highest final rating so far (beats ep 1 but 0.02m) but no episode yet has out rated the lowest one from last series (6.71m).
28 day figures for ep 1 aren't worth getting excited about - only adds 0.3m which is comparably average for drama programs so doesn't really change the state of affairs much.”
“Better time shift than several of the recent episodes.
Puts it 11th for the week on BBC1. Highest final rating so far (beats ep 1 but 0.02m) but no episode yet has out rated the lowest one from last series (6.71m).
28 day figures for ep 1 aren't worth getting excited about - only adds 0.3m which is comparably average for drama programs so doesn't really change the state of affairs much.”
The ratings are going in the right direction at least. And 6.56 is actually a standard mid series Who rating.
Originally Posted by Dr Thete:
“The ratings are going in the right direction at least. And 6.56 is actually a standard mid series Who rating.”
“The ratings are going in the right direction at least. And 6.56 is actually a standard mid series Who rating.”
Thing is though, that's the series HIGH not a mid-series slump. And that was against terrible opposition which meant the live viewers went up a bit to their highest. They went back down by 0.3m this week, hence the consolidated will likely be 6.2m at most.
Originally Posted by amos_brearley:
“Surely the AI isn't a trend, it's given each week on the episode's merits so it doesn't matter how far through the series we are? Are you suggesting it *will* go down, but shouldn't be doing so this early? Also, did last week's "scrape" 82? You seem to have added an emotive element suggesting it struggled to reach that number which I assume is not based on any inside information. 82 is still a good figure and let's be honest, the last pair of episodes have not exactly been fan favourites (looking at the polls on here alone), so it's no shock to see that reflected slightly in the lowers AI scores.”
“Surely the AI isn't a trend, it's given each week on the episode's merits so it doesn't matter how far through the series we are? Are you suggesting it *will* go down, but shouldn't be doing so this early? Also, did last week's "scrape" 82? You seem to have added an emotive element suggesting it struggled to reach that number which I assume is not based on any inside information. 82 is still a good figure and let's be honest, the last pair of episodes have not exactly been fan favourites (looking at the polls on here alone), so it's no shock to see that reflected slightly in the lowers AI scores.”
So stories this series don't appeal as much to people so far as two years ago.
Originally Posted by claire2281:
“Thing is though, that's the series HIGH not a mid-series slump. And that was against terrible opposition which meant the live viewers went up a bit to their highest. They went back down by 0.3m this week, hence the consolidated will likely be 6.2m at most.”
“Thing is though, that's the series HIGH not a mid-series slump. And that was against terrible opposition which meant the live viewers went up a bit to their highest. They went back down by 0.3m this week, hence the consolidated will likely be 6.2m at most.”
The 'mid-series slump' is a myth (series patterns have been more complicated and varied than that).
But I was only pointing out that this is at least in the standard Who range (taking out openers and finales). Which is at least a bit reassuring.
I remember people saying that the high AI figures in conjunction with high audience ratings made it even more impressive.
We now have lower audience ratings and lower AI figures, a more dedicated audience could be expected to have a higher appreciation than a larger audience with lots of casual viewers but that has not happened.
We now have lower audience ratings and lower AI figures, a more dedicated audience could be expected to have a higher appreciation than a larger audience with lots of casual viewers but that has not happened.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“They based these on consolidated ratings then? Do you know how much the current AI scoring system has changed compared to 2013? It can't be that much I'd assume.”
“They based these on consolidated ratings then? Do you know how much the current AI scoring system has changed compared to 2013? It can't be that much I'd assume.”
I don't think anything has changed with the AI system since 2013 as far as I'm aware.
Originally Posted by Hypnosss:
“I remember people saying that the high AI figures in conjunction with high audience ratings made it even more impressive.
We now have lower audience ratings and lower AI figures, a more dedicated audience could be expected to have a higher appreciation than a larger audience with lots of casual viewers but that has not happened.”
“I remember people saying that the high AI figures in conjunction with high audience ratings made it even more impressive.
We now have lower audience ratings and lower AI figures, a more dedicated audience could be expected to have a higher appreciation than a larger audience with lots of casual viewers but that has not happened.”
I seem to remember the awful End of Time double episode at the end of Tennant's era scored a very high AI as well as high viewing figures. Just goes to show that good quality programming doesn't automatically equal high viewing figures and AI's, and lesser quality doesn't default to low viewing figures and low AI's. This series has been very well received critically and among most fans.
I'm not sure Doctor Who needs to be bedfellows with The X-Factor, but an interesting article here in which Simon Cowell argues that the consolidated Saturday night viewing figures show more people watching his show than Strictly Come Dancing (which is obviously not what is being reported).
It includes the quote: "We are adding two or three million on the week's figures which is taking us up to nine-and-a-half, which in this day and age is a miracle. I can make a very quick calculation now, when they come in on Sunday morning, in my mind we have done 10 million, because I know what the catch-up number is going to be. Ten years on to be getting 10 million in this day and age, it is a miracle."
It includes the quote: "We are adding two or three million on the week's figures which is taking us up to nine-and-a-half, which in this day and age is a miracle. I can make a very quick calculation now, when they come in on Sunday morning, in my mind we have done 10 million, because I know what the catch-up number is going to be. Ten years on to be getting 10 million in this day and age, it is a miracle."
Originally Posted by david_Robinson:
“Final ratings for The Girl who died: 6.56m
Which is the highest rating so far this series”
“Final ratings for The Girl who died: 6.56m
Which is the highest rating so far this series”
This could be the first series that doesn't break the 7m viewer mark at all. That would be a shame.
If we could throw in the iPlayer numbers, the ratings would probably still be in the 7 millions. Not as many people are watching on TV this series is what I see happening here, not a decline in DW's popularity.
253 of 288
