How old is the show before Doctor Who that ends with 11 million viewers ready be picked up by the next good piece of Saturday night entertainment?

The overnight average figure for this year is 4.24m vs 5.19m last year. Last year 8/12 eps went over 5m, none did this year. The average has dropped by 0.95m or 18.3%. It's certainly a significant drop when you take into account only one episode of this series got a higher rating than the lowest rated ep of last series.

Blaming the time slot doesn't make sense considering the back half of last series was in the same position against a stronger XFactor and did much better.

The rating is certainly not terrible but tbh probably not good enough to warrant such a prime slot in the schedule. The point will be moot though as the show will be moving anyway for 2017.

Tbf though the final figures are a fairer indication of how the series compare and they won't be out for a couple of weeks.

Last four episodes have seen rising ratings. Things on the way up. Plenty of good word of mouth on forums.

I am hopeful that maybe a break next year will do Doctor Who good, you never know? Haha.

You're hardly comparing like with like are you? Strictly is a 'live' entertainment show that really needs to be watched live. Doctor Who is a sci-fi / family drama.

But the bigger picture is of falling ratings across the board - Eastenders / Coronation Street / X Factor / Downton Abbey etc, because there are more and more channels, more ways of watching, more competition... The days of big bumper ratings are coming to an end. Why should Doctor Who be immune? It still does pretty well, all things considered.

Maybe, with a new companion. But I think the show needs bigger changes that another break won't fix.

Such as? Perhaps 10 continuous years is simply a long time for one show to be on air in the modern era.

I swear that some people in this thread actively THRIVE on the falling ratings. Week after week posting that they're down, that the show is failing etc. I'm really not sure what there is to enjoy in it, but good luck to 'em.

Still got series 10 and, I assume, 2 Christmas specials to put up with first, Ed. Still, I've never gone along with the ratings equals quality stuff though. I've heard 'Jekyll...' is good, (ie some people I know like it, basically!) but as I said up thread, it's just not doing it numbers-wise. (Down to less than 1 and a half million viewers last week, I think) Consolidated figures of around 6m aren't *terrible* for a Drama in Who's weekend slot v a 'Reality' programme. I'd say they're good, really. Just not as good as they have been. Sure this will be discussed at length behind closed doors.

This 2 parter and the River appearance at Christmas hasn't dissuaded me from the theory that Moffat was planning to leave this year, but that the timing wasn't right for whoever is going to step in, or they still haven't found who they consider to be right for Who yet. Okay, that *is* just a theory, but SM has confirmed in an interview that this issue has been/is being addressed...

It's their way of trying to validate that it's a given fact the show is currently rubbish and anyone who doesn't agree with the ratings and enjoys it is wrong. Just leave them to it if it makes them feel better.

Yeah best to ignore the haters on here.

Does anyone know when we'll get the AI score for Hell Bent?

But we haven't had 10 continuous years. We had a break in 2009 and 2013.

We need a new executive producer and, I hate to say, a new Doctor.

We have had ten continuous years. Nine series, yes; but numerous specials, and certainly significant amounts of 'Who' in every year since 2005. Even in the Specials year of 2009, there were 60 minute specials in April, November and December.

So with that in mind, bearing in mind the casual observer who has drifted away from a show that's been on for ten continuous years, how would you attract them back? Why would they be bothered by a new doctor or a new showrunner, when there's already been four doctors plus a war-doctor the past ten years, and two showrunners?

2005-2015 (inclusive) is 11 years, so we should have had 11 seasons of Who by now. So we've skipped two seasons, not one. I think you are underestimating how patchy Who was 2011-2014 - certainly not continuous - and the impact those various gaps had on the audience.

Putting a 23% decline in viewers as nothing more than viewer-fatigue is in my opinion a nonsense. The show simply isn't very good right now - dull, humourless, plodding and joyless. That's why people have switched off. And unfortunately - again, my opinion - Moffat and Capaldi are central to the problem.

Giving the show another break and bringing it back the same would be pointless. A new companion simply won't be enough.

Ok - I'll adjust my original statement: we've had eleven continuous years of Doctor Who on television!! This just underlines my point: every year from 2005 has contained significant amounts of Who on screen. When you consider that Sherlock, for example, comes out every 2-3 years and each series only contains 3 '90 minute' specials, then even the leanest years such as 2009 and 2013 actually contained a significant amount of air-time for Doctor Who. Remember too, Doctor Who has been heavily trailed and marketed throughout that time.

So yes, I think viewer fatigue is a legitimate explanation, although obviously it's not the single exclusive reason for viewing figures declining. In my opinion there's been a perfect storm this year of England playing in the rugby world cup at the same time, and also very late start-times. All these things play their part.

Obviously, as you're not enjoying the Capaldi era, naturally you would link that with the viewing decline. My perspective is somewhat different - I think the Matt Smith era was largely a misstep for the show, and damaged Moffat's credibility. The last two series have been corrective and subsequently excellent, but it may be too late, given, as I've already said, the other factors involved. But "dull, humourless, plodding and joyless" do not, in my opinion, describe Who right now. Capaldi is a sensational doctor.

I suspect you know full well there haven't been ten continuous years. People who think yet another gap year will save the show are just clutching at an olive branch. We're only two seasons on from the last gap year, neither of which were well received, especially this one. Remember, it's the performance of this series that will dictate the ratings of the next series and Christmas special, unless there's a new Doctor, producer, Tardis set and theme tune.

It doesn't matter whether Strictly is 'live' or not, your key word was 'entertainment', and Doctor Who has been neither fun nor entertaining since somewhere early in Matt Smith's tenure. Inertia and Matt Smith's personality carried the show until now. Sadly, the last two episodes of Peter Capaldi showing his potential is too little, too late.

The fact the revival show has even made it to ten years and is still considered relevant is an achievement in itself. Considering Moffat had big shoes to fill in and had to save the BBC from wanting to cancel the show with the departure of Tennant and RTD is a tremendous achievement. And he did it sticking to his own style instead of trying to imitate RTD.

I still see little to worry about with the ratings; Doctor Who remains one of the BBC's flagship shows and there is a high demand for it, as well as its popularity on iPlayer and the critical positivity it's received this year. Even in the unlikely event it was cancelled, I could only see it being brought back in a very short time. It's in a much different light than it was in 1989.

Pedantic quibbling, surely? Eleven consecutive years of production and broadcast. 2009 and 2012 had noticeably fewer episodes than normal. 2013 had 5 fewer regular episodes than normal but this was disguised by the major anniversary special, a minisode, the dramatisation of the show's origins, a regeneration in the christmas special, and the BBC blitzing the audience with repeats, documentaries etc.

I don't think the amount of time it's been back on air has much to do with anything. The drop was quite significant compared to previous years.

Series 8 was pretty consistent with what we've come to expect and then suddenly there were a million or so less people unaccounted for this year. That's not what happens to a show that's been on the air for a while, it's usually more gradual than that. Not a big fall in the grand scheme of things, but a big fall in such a short space of time.

I'd say almost entirely accounted for by being shown the later in the year. This is born out by the ratings for BBC America which peaked at the end of summer then declined sharply as winter approached and the competition for viewers increased.

Mummy on the Orient express was shown at 8:37pm on 11th Oct 2014 and got 7.11m viewers.

Before the Flood was shown at 8.26pm on 10th Oct 2015 and got 6.05m viewers.

Similar timeslot, similar time of year but with a million less viewers.

But the show has lost viewers overall, not just live viewers so the comparison to a live show like Strictly doesn't work. Nor does the time of year really explain the drop since the show had normal-ish ratings last year in a similar time slot. Anyone with any interest in the show, even if they weren't watching live, would be recording the show and the fact that the final ratings are a million down suggest they aren't doing that.

And figuring out why is now the job of the BBC. They need to figure out why so many people lost interest in the show and how to bring them back.

Series 9 has been more action packed ham acting comic relief than before so you shouldnt be complaining.I know Tennant isnt around,but he went along time ago and there is no point in repeat performance.

Viewing habits have changed, time slot has changed and been inconsistent, so its impossible to compare like to like.

We should make BARB include iPlayer views for finals... We'd be unstoppable!!! MWAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry... I get carried away...