Very likely the sentiment in his mind, if he didn't say it out loud.

But as I was trying to say in my post, the situation with 10 and rose was a natural development over time, where you could see where those feelings gradually came from. The 9th doctor didn't just look at her in 'Rose' and think 'ooh, I fancy her', it was a gradual and believable tale of a strong friendship, that by the end of series 2 was on the verge of something more. Not everyone liked it, but at least RTD put the work in to make it believable.

Clara on the other hand, it feel's like we were more told she was important by way of plot devices rather than shown, and when the showing happened, it was in the form of her acting like she was better than the doctor, so to. For me, they spent so much time making her overbearing and 'important' that they forgot to make her likeable. The strange thing was, they made so much of there supposed bond, yet the doctor seemed to actively dislike Clara towards the latter part of series 8, and it seemed like the only reason he was going back for her was that he was duty bound by the script rather than any obvious connection.

As you say though, likeability is subjective. I know there are those who love Clara, I just personally don't understand why.

I have to say though, I believe this was brought up because someone further up the thread suggested Clara might be more the reason for the ratings decline than the 12th doctor, and while there is no scientific way to prove that, I could easily believe it, and it will be interesting to see if ratings rise with Capaldi's next companion.

That was me, I think. But I didn't mean Clara was the reason for the million viewer drop. More that doing something like Clara in series 10 would be a mistake. River, Amy and Clara have similarities and it would be nice to have a bit of a change from that.

If they are intending to refresh the show at all in response to the ratings and lower AI, the companion will be part of that. I don't think another River/Amy/Clara would be seen as refreshing, so my guess is a Rose style companion who isn't, from the outset, presented as a puzzle or turns out to already be part of a massive plot against the Doctor.

Oh behave yourself. Amazing to see the usual suspects now rather than just posting falsehoods and untruths to try and back up their viewpoints are now having to resort to inventing quotes!

and the down the plughole this forum continues to sail.

I agree with a lot of you about Clara. I stopped watching regularly at the same time she came in. It wasn't specifically because of her, but I think they came at it the wrong way for me. There wasn't anytime to get know her before having to accept she was this huge figure (and this is after River Song as well). It felt like Moffat wasn't writing for a program with a broad appeal, but rather treating it as his own personal fanfiction aimed towards a niche.

I did actually quite like Clara as a character, but I never connected with her. The Rose companion model wasn't perfect either, but written in a way that was relatable. I know RTD had his own bias as well. Ten/Rose ruined her character for me, and was just as bad as Moffat in some ways, but there was always more going on to the story. It was a major component, but the plot had enough going on for itself. And although he shouldn't have had it over spill so much into series 3, it did end, whereas Clara has been dragged out.

He should have gone with another Donna type - seems normal, and then turns out to be more, which gives the viewer time to connect to them. For me, bigging them up so much without build up kind of sets up to fail, because, especially where Moffat is concerned, they never live up to the hype.

I didn't invent anything. I agreed with something Mullet posted. There are many people who feel Clara was overbearing and too pushed as 'important'. Nothing wrong with stating that more so than the people saying the loved her.

Why does it matter anyway. It's not like slating something that will be part of the show going forward. She's gone now and I was saying that I feel that Capaldi was never the problem and that hopefully the show will do better with someone else alongside him, which is surely what everyone wants.

You didnt invent it. The forum member you quoted did. You cant just go around making up quotes. It was bad enough when they kept falsely attributing comments to Moffat.

' Rose is the greatest character ever created in all of fiction and to be honest I now realise this Freema girl isnt much cop so I'm going to sabotage her entire season with constant over shadowing of Rose and then get rid of her in a really dull and unremarkable way'
RTD, 2006..........probably

Clara is a teacher. She moved away from home. She wants to maintain a career.

That sounds pretty normal to me!

Er, didn't this thread used to be about TV audience figures...........?

Sorry? Clara was a teacher? No she wasn't. She was a live-in nanny. Later on she became a teacher. We weren't shown this transition, we were just supposed to accept that it had happened. But she was living in London before becoming a teacher and living in London after becoming a teacher. There was nothing about her moving away from home to maintain a career. She was very specifically shown to have been an orphan. Who kept a magical leaf. I suppose her career transition was all very realistic because she was a genius who had magical computer skills injected into her so she probably passed teacher training with ease. Like what happens all the time in normal land. She would, of course, never mention the family she used to work for ever again, despite this having been established as an important aspect of her character. Totally normal.

Everything, absolutely everything, about Clara was weird beyond belief. I rather liked her but only because the actress was good. The character was bizarre.


A long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

No she wasn't.


We saw her having Christmas Dinner with her Father in Time of the Doctor.

Oh yeah - it was just her mum who had died. I remembered it as being the pair of them. I obviously wasn't paying too much attention to Time of the Doctor. Whoops. So someone's going to have to tell him she's dead now. But it will never be mentioned again.

Not really since she can still visit him at any time!

Trying to create a normal life for a character and make it interesting is fine, it's something Joss Whedon excelled it, but RTD couldn't do it. The whole "I have a job in a shop that bores me and my mother nags a lot" thing, something which RTD had to remind us of a little too often, got old fast and there was no reason to care about it when Rose wasn't running away from aliens. It was difficult to maintain any interest in her relations with other characters when she was so emotionally abusive towards them... Mickey was essentially kept on a string for when she couldn't have the Doctor but as soon as he was around she'd be back to acting like he was nothing to her, and even for a 19 year old she was totally neglectful of her mother's feelings. Compare it to Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters do lead normal lives and do make a lot of stupid mistakes, but we're led to see why they'd want to act the way they did and they're capable to redeeming themselves and showing they're only people... it made the show just as interesting when it was two characters chatting away in a living room as it was when they were fighting monsters. He gave his characters for the way they acted; RTD just said "my character wants to do this now, deal with it" I can't agree that Rose and the Doctor's relationship was given a natural developement over time either... they went from being extremely close friends in Series 1, to a kiss at the end where they suddenly became star-crossed lovers, and yet I was never convinced why the Doctor would even fall in love with her.

Clara might not have such a "deep" background but Moffat plays to his strengths and giving his characters fully-fledged normal lives is something he doesn't do often, choosing to just focus on them as a character. I could understand her struggle to try and balance her time in the TARDIS and her time with Danny, we could see why she cared for both and why she struggled to choose; we could see why she didn't want to tell him everything and why she kept the Doctor and him at a distance. Moffat gave Clara the basic trait of motivation which RTD failed to give his characters more often than not.

Clara Mk II was better realised than original Clara.

If you're going to drag me into your latest row, saladfingers81, the least you could do is tell me what I'm supposed to have done!

One of the things that damaged series 9 was the big trailer leading up to the series which had the line "Same old, same old - the Doctor and Clara Oswald in the Tardis". It gave many people an excuse to tune out on the basis that "we've seen it all before". Basically Clara stayed a series too long, she had very little to do throughout the series. Her proposed exit in last year's Christmas Special would have been a perfect end in my opinion (although that said, I loved the final three episodes of series 9, so perhaps Moffat redeemed himself).

I don't have any kind of visceral hatred towards Clara's character, but it certainly wasn't easy to connect with her, given that she was the impossible girl who basically became like the Doctor. It's imperative that Moffat gives us a relatable, ordinary character who rings true. My big beef with Moffat's era of Who is that all the companions - Amy & Rory, River, Clara - all 'banter' in this rather quick-fire clever way which simply doesn't resemble the way most people communicate in real life. That's why Rose, Martha and Donna resonate more with me - they seemed more real.

Moffat has got a lot of stuff right, and Capaldi is already a great doctor - he just needs a great companion.

An interesting roundup of the +7 figures for the first half of the season on http://www.doctorwhonews.net/

Still bad news though.

Overall Doctor Who's total Live +7 ratings are down around 1.5 million on the 2014 figures, to average a total of around 6.8 million watching each episode.

Think the BBC & Moffatt need to figure out exactly what they want Dr Who to be & what they expect of it.
For me it's changed its tone from when RTD was running show & in its ratings high of Tennant. I think that era was designed to appeal to everyone as there were a few scarier sci-fi episodes mixed in with lighter episodes for younger viewers (farting aliens etc) & for many you didn't have to engage your brain too much to work out what was going on.
Since Moffatt took over (& more so since PC took over) to me it's gone to far more adult based IMO as its more thoughtful, slightly less action and you really have to pay attention to keep up with what's going on. My kids have stopped watching as they either lost interest in episodes or thought they were too scary.
Dr Who getting more like Sherlock....but is that what kids want to see?
With its current writing format even Tennant wouldn't revive the high ratings as its lost its broad appeal. If the BBC are happy with ratings & possible loss of kids market (toys sales etc) then things won't change & ratings will remain the same. PC should not be under threat as he is fantastic, but maybe time for Moffat to step aside as take the show in another direction which is a balance between RTD & Moffatt?? At the moment it seems caught between family entertainment & full blown Sci-fi which is bit of a niche audience...certainly less complicated stories from Moffatt would be a good start to winning back casual viewers

Well yes, interesting in the same way a stubbed toe or a haemorrhoid is interesting

But also interesting in for instance the analysis of the AI figures with the show and its older lead and arguably more introspective and less action packed plots being more popular with the younger audience than the older.

Not necessarily.

No one has really done any proper investigation into why fantasy programmes on the main channels have tended to bomb this year.

Atlantis speaks for itself, but Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Midwinter of the Spirit and Jekyll and Hyde would all, in past years, have had a couple of extra million from the outset. In 2015 they haven't even been able to get a foothold with the opening episode.

The programmes that have done comparatively better have been the ones with more of an introspective storyline and less overtly fantastical aspects - An Inspector Calls, Humans, and late last year the Black Mirror special.

For all the talk about everything being Moffat's fault, or blaming the casting/Murray Gold/the writers, I think when it's put into context, Doctor Who has largely got away with it. Homegrown fantasy television just doesn't seem to be in favour at the moment, and I think that Beowulf could be in for a very difficult time when it starts in January.

Maybe that supports the theory that Moffat has taken the show into more of a niche - the kind of cult show popular with teens and 20s. An insular feeling where the show is about the lead characters more than anything going on around them. I saw one such young person saying she didn't know why they bothered "wasting money" on "filler" episodes that weren't about the arc plot. She was confounded as to why they exist at all.

Whereas I (old fart) am happy with traditional Doctor Who - something bad is happening somewhere. The Tardis lands, they get out, involve themselves then bugger off. After ten years of the revived show I've grown accustomed to the companions and the Doctor having character arcs, but the recent thing of the companions also being tightly wrapped up with series arc plots is becoming tiresome. As are arc plots that are all about the bloody Doctor. Can we please not have any more plots against the Doctor? How about a whole series where nobody the Doctor meets has ever heard of him and couldn't care less about him? The 16-34s would appear to disagree with me. Maybe I'd disagree with myself if I wasn't so used to the classic format.

Well, that means that the, erm, 'less young' need to get with the programme, yeah? The younger viewers like complex and dark. They think it's wicked and sick and groovy, dig?

Groovy? Dig? Ahem. Yes, I am middle-aged.

Interesting stuff re: the BBC figures and how the AI's break down age-wise. I assume the ratings will be similar or even slightly up for the second half of the series, as the lowest overnights came early on, which should balance out the lack of BBC3 repeat post episode 4. Whilst a bit disappointed that the drop has occurred in a year where I personally think we've had a series near the top of C21 Who quality wise (I'd say the second best of the 9 myself) these are not bad figures by any stretch....

Will be interesting to see if the likely change of time of year/timeslot will see any sort of change, but that's a long way in the future. I'm just looking forward to Christmas. The more I see and hear, the more it sounds like it's going to be a lot of fun. Just seeing Capaldi giggling and saying "We're being threatened by a BAG!" made me smile. No 'Snowmen-esque' broodiness here. Helps that I like River, of course.

ETA Very thoughtful posts by Kieran Seymour and Bandit06, etc. The thread's back on topic!

A bit off topic but...
Clara had a degree in English. Like many people who go to University, she left home and probably stayed on in London. I know plenty of people from around the UK who stayed on in London after graduating.

Becoming an English teacher is perfectly logical, maybe she did teacher training between S7 and DOTD, it would have been nice to have seen this, but hardly essential. Moff series have jumps in time between them, a couple of years probably passed between S7 and DOTD. Similarly the Ponds knew 11 for a LOT longer than the 2 1/2 years it took on screen.

She was only a nanny as a short term favour for the Maitlands, why should she mention them afterwards? It's not as if we all wanted to see more of Angie and Artie

Why do people keep saying Clara was an orphan? Her very-much-alive dad might dispute that!