Talk about anything here as long as it is not against the rules. Post count not affected.
Dec 11th, 2018, 6:55 pm
SFP wrote:Eddie1968: Firstly, I don't think I've dismissed any of your ideas or your anxieties and, in one respect, you're absolutely correct, a change of gender will, potentially, turn some of the Doctor Who universe on it's head. As to why it hasn't been done before? I suspect that, historically, either a huge body of BBC opinion sided with your own viewpoint or, simply didn't consider it as an option. Putting all questions of 'political correctness' to one side, the BBC, as well as society in general may have simply lacked the vision or courage to consider the issue until now. On the other hand, it might, as some suggest, be a case of self-indulgent 'political correctness gone mad. Personally, I don't believe that motive always matters in the long run.




I wouldn't define 'vision and courage' to mean take a TV program and make a change that will obviously ruin it. My point is that I thought the change was an extremely misjudged and potentially fatal one, regardless of any terms applied to the decision by anyone else. As you say, motives don't matter, at least not as far as the results go, and we are talking about the ruination of a popular (to a minority of TV viewers, and a larger demographic of science fiction fans) TV program.

Look at it this way: say you lived in England, and loved football. Now imagine that the FA (who control football in the UK) announce that they're going to randomly choose half of the football teams and make them use only female players, and that your football team is one of them. Now, would you be happy or upset?

It could be said that that was a good idea, with respect to womens' rights (and certainly we do need to improve women's rights in many, many areas), and it no doubt would be. But what would it do to the success and quality of the teams that were now made up of women?

Women can play football, maybe not as well as men overall, but they can play football much better than a female Doctor Who would work. And changing half of the players in the football leagues would be courageous (no sure about visionary, though), but most football supporters (even women) would oppose it because the changed teams wouldn't be as good.

Yet it would still be football. Whereas Doctor Who with a female lead is not Doctor Who. It couldn't be, and it isn't.

And when the fans of those changed teams, or anyone else, complained about the declining standards of the football in those teams, and how those teams were no longer enjoying successes, then people like loonyboyx would label them all as women-hating sexists (even, er, the female fans who complain), and post insulting drivel like that image:

Image

instead of actually considering that maybe, just maybe, the reasons for someone having an opinion isn't, perhaps, down to personal malice.


The truly important questions (I would suggest) are:



(i) do you, personally, find that thought that everything will change (in this case with a woman taking over an established, historically 'male' role), exciting or does the idea fill you with dread, disappointment and anger?
(ii) does everyone involved in creating the programme have the will, skill, capacity and strength of character needed to embrace those changes and make them work?
(iii) provided the answer to (ii) is "yes", will you embrace those changes or reject them?




Surely the important question is would the change of gender work in Doctor Who. And it's been proven not to, I (*monumentally* regretfully) say. What else matters?

But to answer your questions:

(i) I find it extremely disappointing that a program I love so much has been ruined, even if the intentions were good. It wasn't even like it was slightly possible for it to work, so it's not like the BBC can truthfully say "Well we were wrong, but it sounded like a good idea". Not that the BBC exactly has a history of apologising for it's mistakes, but still...

(ii) No. Firstly because the change obviously could never work, and secondly because the writing, ideas, even the make up on the 'aliens' has been rubbish and very often utterly childish. Even if both the Doctor's gender change, story-wise, and Jodi Whittaker as the actress, had worked in the role, it would have been at best Doctor Who with a good Doctor but mostly terrible storylines/ideas/enemies/etc. Though in that case, none of the bad would have been down to the change in the Doctor's gender, and with a change of writers and better ideas, etc, then it would have been a great program again. But the change of the Doctor's gender was fatal to the program anyway. The program has been through very bad periods of stories/lack of mature themes and ideas/terrible villains/etc before (such as the Sixth Doctor's seasons, or most of the Seventh Doctor's seasons) but even at it's worst, then it was still Doctor Who. This last series was not Doctor Who.

(iii) If it had worked then I'd have been overjoyed. I really, really wanted it to work, since the only alternative was that it wouldn't work, and I didn't want to loose the program at all. But it hasn't worked. And nor could it, I honestly believe.




I'm saying this as a 'man' but, personally, I find the thought exciting. Seeing the universe through a woman's eyes, mind, body and spirit could profoundly alter the Doctor's perspective on the past, present and future her/his internally and externally and, if that is your concern, then you might be right to worry. Even if it was a triumph, It could still change the programme in a way you find personally distasteful. Equally, it could be a disaster by anybody's standards in which case, the BBC will have lost a major opportunity and lost another generation of viewers. And, just to clarify, I'm sixty years of age and remember watching the first doctor on a black and white television as a child so, I would suggest, I've got as much, if not more reason to feel as disappointed as anyone.


But by your own words you think the change might be for the better. So at least you had reason to be optimistic. From the start, I was convinced it would ruin the program, and it's not like they HAD to make the change. You yourself admit that it might have been "a disaster by anybody's standards in which case, the BBC will have lost a major opportunity and lost another generation of viewers" (and in fact it has been an utter disaster), so why should the BBC have been allowed to take a risk that even people who didn't oppose the change (such as you) admit might well kill off the program? If they wanted to do something to put a female actress in a lead part, they could have made a new TV program, with a female lead. Why not a new series set in the Doctor Who universe, with a female time lord? Instead, they were happy to risk ruining the program, just to look all PC to the world. And **** the fans.



I'm not going to comment on the arguments littering this forum except to say that I find some of the notions expressed distasteful and, to my mind, somewhat immature, not just with regard to the subject of whether or not the Doctor might or might not be played successfully by a woman, but with regard to the topic of Brexit and political correctness that has crept in on the sidelines. Just to be clear: I personally feel (as a son, brother, widow who loved and lost his best friend and partner of twenty years, as a proud father and grandfather of both girls and boys) that the biggest problem women face is the fact that a significant percentage of the population (regardless of age, creed, colour, religion or race) lack the maturity, intellectual and emotional desire or capacity, personal integrity, empathy and sensitivity to cope with the fact that they were born with a penis. I do not have to walk through the world fearing rape or murder by a person that I know, don't know or am related to and, even in the unlikely event that that were to occur, I would most likely be raped by another man. Some men of my father's generation, for instance, also believed that (and I heard this expressed so, it's real, not made up), on the basis that 'when a woman says "no" she really means "yes" and that a woman who was truly raped will have resisted her attacker and been beaten black and blue in the meantime, it was reasonable to divorce, separate of throw out a wife or partner who had been raped. After all, what "self-respecting male in his right mind" would want to remain with another man's soiled, second-hand cast-off! Physical rape is, perhaps, one of the most obvious of the many indignities suffered by women and, while there is no doubt that it is not just women who suffer abuse in today's world and, while it is also true that women are just as capable of abusing their own status and power as men are, it remains an issue that needs to be addressed whether you or I happen to like it or not.


I agree with everything you said here, except your remark about PC creeping in. PC has, in the main, done a *lot* of good, almost immeasurably more good than bad, and is a very, very good thing. Nonetheless, it has done some bad (and mind-bogglingly stupid) things, and we should point the bad things out when they occur. And freedom of speech is a real casualty even in this forum. My opinions and reasons have been dismissed as purely driven by sexism and a fear of women, instead of being considered (and argued against, in wrong) by people in this thread, and they're allowed to do so simply because I was giving an opinion that didn't blindly follow the PC extremist viewpoint.

Look how offensive that image is. Imagination if it were making fun of Doctor Who fans who wanted the Doctor to change gender. Then this thread would have been filled with people criticising the poster of the image for daring to ridicule the belief of someone who agreed with a politically correct decision. And (the same people would cry) what about freedom of speech?
If someone wants the Doctor to change to a female, then By God they should be allowed to say so. Free speech is the bedrock on which this nation is founded.

But I oppose the change of gender. And since my decision is incidentally against the extreme PC viewpoint, then I can be ridiculed freely by anyone, and my right to free speech suddenly becomes my right to be mocked and to have my views assigned to bigotry and sexism, so that the ultra-PC hypocrites don't have to consider that I might be right.

Seriously, look through this forum and read the drivel and insults I've had to endure, simply because I posted my opinion and it wasn't PC. And then tell me that I'd have received the same **** if say I posted something equally true but this time PC.




Finally, try to dismiss my opinions as 'soft', 'wishy-washy', 'liberal' or 'lefty' and be aware that, in doing so, you will have lost any moral high ground regardless of whether or not you type a response. Personally, while I find some of the statements (on both sides) made in this forum to date disagreeable, dismissive and distasteful, I'm glad that they have been made if only because, if I have to stand up for something or argue my case, I'd rather argue with a person who's prepared to disagree and punch me on the nose, than someone who will say little or nothing, sneak up behind and stab me in the back! At least you've had the courage to speak your mind, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with you. After all, the question, for all sides of a truly 'democratic' debate (apart from the moral courage and integrity to differentiate between a 'slight preference' and a 'mandate') is not whether or not we believe that we are right, but whether or not we're prepared to believe that there might be more than one answer, more than one way to go, or that we might not be completely right at all?


Yes, but freedom of speech is currently under attack in so many areas. It's better than it was centuries back, of course, at least in many countries. But it's something that needs to be constantly upheld, and so many groups want to only class freedom of speech as being freedom to say whatever they themselves believe, or want to believe, to be true.



That doesn't mean that one should not act decisively, incidentally. Adults have to make a lot of decisions because some kind of decision has to be made 'now', regardless of whether or not we really understand the problem or regardless of whether or not we have all the information we need. What's important, is that you maintain the ability to recognise that, while decisions have to be made or beliefs held, they are held on the basis that they are the best decisions that could be made, or beliefs that can be held 'at the moment' and should be reconsidered, amended or dropped in the face of new information. True ignorance is not based on the belief that you should not state your position believing that you are right; but on the inability to state your position knowing that you might be only partially right, or completely wrong and have, therefore, to admit to being (partially or completely) wrong and revise it.

With that in mind, and returning to the pertinent question of whether or not the doctor might be successfully played by a woman, have a look at questions (i) to (iii) again and, ask, what might I/we do (as individuals or as a group) to ensure that, having made the decision to give the Doctor's role to Jodi Whittacker (whether I/we happen to like it or not), the BBC ensures that she (Jodi), the rest of the cast, writers, directors, producers and contributors to the programme at every level do what they need to do in order to maintain the programme's high production and moral values and make the decision work!

Think you/we can do that?

Steph_P


Well, first of all we can do nothing. The BBC doesn't listen to it's fans. We get no say in anything. And the BBC have already decided that there will be no new series of Doctor Who in 2019, which is taken by many people to mean that the BBC wants to end the program totally (as they did for seventeen years in 1989), and which might provide part of the reason as to why the BBC made such a stupid decision to change the Doctor's gender in the first place; perhaps the BBC realised that the gender change would ruin the program and drive viewers away, and so they could then kill of the program due to the drop in viewer-ship. The BBC has always seemed to be almost ashamed of the program, and this does seem like a convenient way to end it.
Dec 11th, 2018, 6:55 pm
Dec 11th, 2018, 7:02 pm
sagar.gare1 wrote:It wasn't as good as previous seasons/years, Hartnell to Capaldi for example. I know a lot of previous fans have turned off the show in protest of a bad casting decision. I don't think it worked from Chris Chibnall's (The head writer) perspective (I mean, I'm a tad dissapointed in him and he's from Liverpool, I like scousers but when they take what was once a watchable show into something it shouldn't be then it doesn't work. What with no daleks or any other classic monsters. Just plain and drab, A little less action. I hope that the bbc see sense and have a hand in the casting next time and not the next guy that takes over from Chibnall. I'm not sexist by any means at all I just think a woman (JW) in the part doesn't work. I hope that answers it for you. Oh and hoping for an american or australian actor to take over next time.


It's by far my least favourite season, ever (including the original series, of course).



DougGraves wrote:I thought the season was fantastic, I like her a lot more that I ever did spaz-boy Matt Smith.


I'm glad some people enjoyed it. I personally really liked Matt Smith, though.
Dec 11th, 2018, 7:02 pm
Dec 12th, 2018, 8:08 am
I Agree With What Eddie1968 Says. The BBC Didn't Want It In 1963. Fastforward To 1986, Johnathan Powell The Then Head Of Drama At The BBC Hated The Show So Much He Actually Had Colin Baker Fired. Sound Familiar, The Show Went On A Downward Spiral Then And It's Going The Same Way Now. I Think The BBC Have Gone Back In Time To 1986. It's History Repeating It's Self Again. Fact: A Teenage Chris Chibnall In 1986 Appeared On Junior Choice (An Eighties Children's Version Of Points Of View, He Was Part Of A Doctor Who Club) To Complain About The Show Being To Violent, So Why Is He In Charge Now Ruining A Once Decent TV Show. Bring Back One Of The Other Doctors, Matt Smith Or Get Us An Unknown Actor British Or Other Wise. Anything If It'll Make The BBC And Chibnall Realise The Show Isn't Working At The Moment. Jon Pertwee William Hartnell And Troughton Would Be Appalled If They Were Alive Now And Could See Where The Show Has Gone
Dec 12th, 2018, 8:08 am
Dec 13th, 2018, 9:47 pm
It's got the highest season average ratings since it came back in 2003. It's a huge success whether people here like it or not.

Come and join us in the real world as it's better than you think.
Dec 13th, 2018, 9:47 pm
Dec 14th, 2018, 7:41 am
The BBC Are making up the viewing figures just to get people to watch Because they know people won't otherwise becuase of their incorrect Political Correctness gone mad. People who did watch before have gone so where's these new viewers coming from? I've heard or read it's mostly women watching now, who would never have watched before. The Real world is that we need another regeneration into another actor (Male) as of ASAP and have the show back to how it was before, There are plenty of people out there me included who would love the chance to be head writer for the show, so why not give one of us a chance? A chance to prove that Chibnall's version of Doctor Who isn't working (I can see it It's a shame Chris Chibnall or anybody else can't) Even the companions are crap now (so puppet like, it's like watching Sooty and Sweep again from my childhood) Except for Bradley Walsh, he's a good game show host/ funny Comedian, but a crap companion. Come on wake up see the real problem of the show then look at what's been done before, there have been twelve men playing the part in 50 plus years and one female now what does that say about the show...Dead to the point of no return in my opinion. Oh and to correct the above it came back in 2005 not 2003
Dec 14th, 2018, 7:41 am
Dec 14th, 2018, 5:51 pm
loonyboyx wrote:It's got the highest season average ratings since it came back in 2003. It's a huge success whether people here like it or not.


I don't know anyone who says that this season has even been average, let alone good. And if the season really was as successful as the BBC estimate (the viewing figures are nothing but estimates, and the BBC is known to be both biased and untruthful) then they wouldn't have announced that they won't be putting on a second series last year, especially after making such a fuss about changing the gender of the main character. Instead they'd be shouting from the rooftops that the second season will be here soon (meaning 2019). But instead they're delaying the new season for at least a year. That speaks volumes to anyone prepared to look at the situation objectively.

The BBC even moved Doctor Who to a much less competitive day/time-slot, in an effort to gain viewers (which they wouldn't have had done if they hadn't thought it necessary because of the viewers they knew they were going to lose due to it being rubbish now), and if the viewing figures are as accurate as the BBC makes up, and if the program now really is that good, then why are the reviews for this season so bad?

This season has been an utter failure, for many reasons, and you can either judge the season by it's quality, and the reviews that it's gotten, or you can instead trust the BBC's estimated viewing figures, and tell yourself that the BBC can somehow magically judge how many TVs are displaying the program as it airs, how many people are in the same room as a particular TV and watching the show on that TV, and how many people are sat in-front of each TV when that TV streams the program at any given time.

I should also ask; how many of the people who did watch some or all of the episodes actually liked them? I've watched them all, but I didn't like any of them (the one about Brother against Brother when India was divided against Pakistan was probably the best, I think), but I stuck with it as I was desperately hoping it would get better as it went on. So I am legitimately one of the genuine number of viewers this season has had, but my watching the program definitely does not count as a positive endorsement of the program, and there is no way that I'm the only one that that's true of.


Come and join us in the real world as it's better than you think.


Even now you have to sneer, don't you? You really are ignorant, aren't you? So confident that anything you think is automatically right, even when all the evidence is against you. Seriously, don't ever reply to me again, because you're not interested in honest discussion or facts, just trying to make yourself look PC, no matter how much you feel the need to distort the facts.
Dec 14th, 2018, 5:51 pm
Dec 14th, 2018, 7:21 pm
There Is No Real World. I Said I Won't Watch The Show Until There's at least a sense of normality again. I'll continue to watch the classic Series and Eccleston - Capaldi ones on dvd I'm a fan in that way But as far as I'm concerned in it's present form the show is nothing and won't ever be unless the series writer Chibnall starts thinking properly about the concept of the show and Character. Deylaying The next season shows how much The BBC's Viewing figures really are, they secretly know there are now fewer viewers then previous years watching, hence the delay so why the pretence and making up of the viewer numbers. The Ideal situation Axe the show they did it once in 1989 and They should do it now unless the show changes and right now I'm seeing no change. I wish Steven Moffett had have stayed on at least it would have kept the same. Doctor Who stopped for me at Peter Capaldi and I'm sticking to that unless Jodie hands over the role to another (male) actor. And I have a few in mind if anybody's interested. The show needs to be regenerated urgently oh and no Christmas special...really it's been tradition since 2005, another one of the BBC's great ruubbish ideas let's move it to new years instead, undo what doesn't need undoing. So why not give us A Doctor who movie if they'll be no series next year, rather like that of the movie Paul Mcgann did with a diffent actor to the series. Even then I don't know How I'd react to that
Dec 14th, 2018, 7:21 pm
Dec 14th, 2018, 9:33 pm
Eddie1968 wrote:
loonyboyx wrote:It's got the highest season average ratings since it came back in 2003. It's a huge success whether people here like it or not.


I don't know anyone who says that this season has even been average, let alone good. And if the season really was as successful as the BBC estimate (the viewing figures are nothing but estimates, and the BBC is known to be both biased and untruthful) then they wouldn't have announced that they won't be putting on a second series last year, especially after making such a fuss about changing the gender of the main character. Instead they'd be shouting from the rooftops that the second season will be here soon (meaning 2019). But instead they're delaying the new season for at least a year. That speaks volumes to anyone prepared to look at the situation objectively.

The BBC even moved Doctor Who to a much less competitive day/time-slot, in an effort to gain viewers (which they wouldn't have had done if they hadn't thought it necessary because of the viewers they knew they were going to lose due to it being rubbish now), and if the viewing figures are as accurate as the BBC makes up, and if the program now really is that good, then why are the reviews for this season so bad?

This season has been an utter failure, for many reasons, and you can either judge the season by it's quality, and the reviews that it's gotten, or you can instead trust the BBC's estimated viewing figures, and tell yourself that the BBC can somehow magically judge how many TVs are displaying the program as it airs, how many people are in the same room as a particular TV and watching the show on that TV, and how many people are sat in-front of each TV when that TV streams the program at any given time.

I should also ask; how many of the people who did watch some or all of the episodes actually liked them? I've watched them all, but I didn't like any of them (the one about Brother against Brother when India was divided against Pakistan was probably the best, I think), but I stuck with it as I was desperately hoping it would get better as it went on. So I am legitimately one of the genuine number of viewers this season has had, but my watching the program definitely does not count as a positive endorsement of the program, and there is no way that I'm the only one that that's true of.




Come and join us in the real world as it's better than you think.


Even now you have to sneer, don't you? You really are ignorant, aren't you? So confident that anything you think is automatically right, even when all the evidence is against you. Seriously, don't ever reply to me again, because you're not interested in honest discussion or facts, just trying to make yourself look PC, no matter how much you feel the need to distort the facts.


The BBC do not "estimate" - it's all a matter of public record on the BARB website. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying or has no idea how the industry works.

The year is a ratings success and the biggest season average for 10 years.

If you or other fans have gone off it that's fair enough but please do not invent insane nonsense about the BBC wanting to kill it or it being failure. It's been a ratings hit despite some fans desperately needing it to fail to validate their opinion. It's very sad grown adults cannot face the truth so invent malicious conspiracies instead.
Dec 14th, 2018, 9:33 pm
Dec 15th, 2018, 6:46 pm
loonyboyx wrote:The BBC do not "estimate" - it's all a matter of public record on the BARB website. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying or has no idea how the industry works.

The year is a ratings success and the biggest season average for 10 years.

If you or other fans have gone off it that's fair enough but please do not invent insane nonsense about the BBC wanting to kill it or it being failure. It's been a ratings hit despite some fans desperately needing it to fail to validate their opinion. It's very sad grown adults cannot face the truth so invent malicious conspiracies instead.


Since you're even incapable of honouring my request not to answer any of my posts (you don't realise how utterly pathetic you come across as, do you?) then OK, I'll call you on this. Post proof that the viewing figures are not estimates, and are actually stone cold fact. Explain to me how the BBC can know exactly how many people watch a given program, both when it's broadcast and any time later, and how they can know how many people are sat in front of a TV when the program is on.

You seem to believe that the BBC has ways to spy on people (otherwise how would they know exactly what is watched and when), so go on, explain how it works and how it delivers such amazing accuracy.

Go on. Post the proof.
Dec 15th, 2018, 6:46 pm
Dec 16th, 2018, 9:41 pm
Eddie1968 wrote:
loonyboyx wrote:The BBC do not "estimate" - it's all a matter of public record on the BARB website. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying or has no idea how the industry works.

The year is a ratings success and the biggest season average for 10 years.

If you or other fans have gone off it that's fair enough but please do not invent insane nonsense about the BBC wanting to kill it or it being failure. It's been a ratings hit despite some fans desperately needing it to fail to validate their opinion. It's very sad grown adults cannot face the truth so invent malicious conspiracies instead.


Since you're even incapable of honouring my request not to answer any of my posts (you don't realise how utterly pathetic you come across as, do you?) then OK, I'll call you on this. Post proof that the viewing figures are not estimates, and are actually stone cold fact. Explain to me how the BBC can know exactly how many people watch a given program, both when it's broadcast and any time later, and how they can know how many people are sat in front of a TV when the program is on.

You seem to believe that the BBC has ways to spy on people (otherwise how would they know exactly what is watched and when), so go on, explain how it works and how it delivers such amazing accuracy.

Go on. Post the proof.


I said very clearly that all the ratings are on the BARB website.

Go check it out. They are the ones who collect the ratings for every single channel and have done for years. Nothing to do with the BBC. These are official industry wide figures that all the channels use to measure ratings, audience appreciation indexes, audience share, +7 and +28s, etc.

It's amazing how many people suddenly act like they know all about the system now the series they wanted to fail has been a success. You just blunder in mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about.

Anyone reading this thread who knows how the industry works is laughing at you right now.
Dec 16th, 2018, 9:41 pm
Dec 17th, 2018, 2:49 pm
loonyboyx wrote:I said very clearly that all the ratings are on the BARB website.

Go check it out. They are the ones who collect the ratings for every single channel and have done for years. Nothing to do with the BBC. These are official industry wide figures that all the channels use to measure ratings, audience appreciation indexes, audience share, +7 and +28s, etc.

It's amazing how many people suddenly act like they know all about the system now the series they wanted to fail has been a success. You just blunder in mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about.

Anyone reading this thread who knows how the industry works is laughing at you right now.


So I ask you to explain how the figures can be, according to you, accurate, and you dodge my question. Why is that? is it:

A) because the method is %100 accurate, and you're right,

or

B) because the method is a total estimate, you're wrong (and were lying as per usual), and you don't want to admit this.

Given that the figures are an estimate, and that you've demonstrated over and over that you have no regards for any facts that contradict you, I'm going to go ahead and assume that 'B)' is the correct answer.


In fact, I quote from the BARB website (

"Having recruited a representative sample of homes, we then start to measure what people are watching and when. Kantar Media fits every TV set in the panel home with a meter. Software meters are also installed on PCs and tablets so that we can monitor viewing of BVOD services on these devices.

In order for us to know who is watching, all individuals in panel homes use a handset to register when they are in front of a TV set or device. The registration handset for TV sets looks a bit like a remote-control unit, while those viewing on PCs use a virtual handset which appears on the screen. Registration takes place through an app when a panel member is viewing on a tablet. Each household member has a button labelled just for them which they press to show that they are in a room when the television is on. There are also buttons for guests to register. All participants are asked to press the button each time they enter or leave the room.

We use an additional technique in homes that subscribe to Sky. In these homes, we are able to access service information codes within Sky’s set-top boxes. This gives great precision in identifying which channels is being tuned into at any given moment.
"

See? They take an almost exponentially small number of households, which they use to estimate how many of the more than sixty-seven million UK residents are watching various programs, and the figure is calibrated by the Sky/streaming/etc devices (which aren't capable of saying how many people are watching a given device at the time). There is no way that this figure is even remotely accurate in terms of how many people are genuinely watching something, but to be fair, it's impossible to gain an accurate figure. It's an ESTIMATE. From a company that might be bias (I don't know if they are, but companies are run by men, and many men are corrupt and open to bribes).

The BBC, on the other hand, is well known to be biased; they even rigged the phone poll where kids could vote for the name of the cat on the kids' program Blue Peter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7011715.stm). The scandal was so well known that even the BBC couldn't bury it and had to admit to it.

So we have estimated viewing figures (yes estimates, despite your assertion that the BBC magically knows exactly how many people are watching a given program) and a broadcasting corporation who have no difficulty in lying when they want to. They claim that the last series of Doctor Who was a great success, despite the overwhelming public opinion that the series was awful, and yet despite the supposedly great success of the last series, the BBC aren't going be to showing a second series next year.

Loonyboyx, throughout this thread you have done nothing but sneer at anyone who dared to dispute your views, libel anyone who dared to have a different opinion to you, and post utter nonsense that utterly contradicted the proven facts. You're unable to accept that anyone (in this case the vast majority of Doctor Who viewers, judging by the comments on the 'net) who though that this season was bad, or who opposed the BBC's changing of the Doctor's gender, were anything other than mindless, sexist, fools, and in this last instance, you refuse to accept that the viewing figures are estimates, despite it being made clear on the BARB website (which you mention yourself) as being estimates. Do you imagine that their own website would lie about it?

And of course, you even have to imply that you somehow know more about everything that anyone else. You say:

"Anyone reading this thread who knows how the industry works is laughing at you right now"

But you're the one who seems to imagine that the industry somehow has a foolproof way of knowing exactly who watches what, instead of just estimating it. And when I ask you to describe the method, you (who wants everyone to think that you have all the answers) just avoid the question. I don't know much about the broadcasting industry, but I seem to know much more than you, since nothing I say contradicts the known facts. I knew that the TV figures were an estimate, for a start, which is a lot more than you do. I know the BBC lies, and I know that when the BBC says that something is a success but the public says different, then the public is right (the public are the ones who the BBC is supposed to entertain, so it's the audiences opinions that count). I also know that if the new series was a success, then the success itself, plus the political correctness factor of a female lead, would make the BBC shout from the roof-tops that the show was coming back next year, and they'd really, really hype it up. They wouldn't try to cover up their mistake by delaying the second season for at least a year.

You also said:

"It's amazing how many people suddenly act like they know all about the system now the series they wanted to fail has been a success. You just blunder in mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about."

First of all, neither I nor any DW fan wanted the show to fail. As always, you're ascribing negative motives and wishes to anyone who dares to think things through and have a different opinion to you (and it's called libel, your mindless slagging off of anyone who dares air a viewpoint other than your own). We wanted the show to succeed - otherwise why, for example, would even I, who was sure the change of gender would ruin the show, desperately sit through the last seires hoping it would get better?

And you say I'm the one "blunder[ing] in mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about", when you are so lacking in intelligence that you imagine that any viewing figures on a national level are actually accurate, instead of being at best well-meaning estimates? Your entire history in this thread has been of you posting drivel and then failing to back it up with proof.

In fact, I challenge you now. You somehow think that the figures are accurate, and not estimates based on very small real-world samples, figures gained from hardware devices (satellite boxes, streaming, whatever else), and other actually existing methods. So for once, just for once, actually post proof of what you say.

Go on, describe how the BBC gets the actual, accurate figures of viewership. Yes, the BBC might get ALL of their viewing figures from BARB, as the BBC outsources many of it's functions and requirements, but it's not the source of the figures that are in question, it's their accuracy. So tell me how the BARB manages to accurately know (not 'estimate', but 'know') the true viewing figures. And then tell me why they lie about it on their website and say that they estimate the viewing figures.

And no one is laughing at this thread. Anyone reading this is wondering if there will ever be a time when the internet will be free of pathetic, utterly unreasonable trolls like you who seem to have nothing better to do than to slag off other people, post easily disprovable 'facts', and then refuse to support those 'facts' when asked to. For example, the way you'll now refuse to describe this (non-existent) method the BBC has of ultimately knowing with accuracy the number of people who watch Doctor Who every week, instead of them just using estimates.
Dec 17th, 2018, 2:49 pm
Dec 17th, 2018, 6:41 pm
Jesus christ..... I'm just stating basic facts and this is the reaction.

As I keep stating, the BBC doesn't collect the ratings, BARB does. And they do it for all TV channels in the country. If you cannot even grasp this basic bit of information and keep ranting on about the BBC getting their own ratings then I won't waste any more time as you clearly don't want to learn something new.

The fact you also say it's not remotely accurate just shows us you have no idea about the science of statistics. People go to Uni and study it for 3 years and still don't know everything. All you've done is prove you are ignorant and are proud of it.

Go read up on statistics and accuracy before arrogantly assuming you know better than the entire entertainment industry.
Dec 17th, 2018, 6:41 pm
Dec 18th, 2018, 2:25 pm
loonyboyx wrote:Jesus christ..... I'm just stating basic facts and this is the reaction.

As I keep stating, the BBC doesn't collect the ratings, BARB does. And they do it for all TV channels in the country. If you cannot even grasp this basic bit of information and keep ranting on about the BBC getting their own ratings then I won't waste any more time as you clearly don't want to learn something new.

The fact you also say it's not remotely accurate just shows us you have no idea about the science of statistics. People go to Uni and study it for 3 years and still don't know everything. All you've done is prove you are ignorant and are proud of it.

Go read up on statistics and accuracy before arrogantly assuming you know better than the entire entertainment industry.


You claimed the figures were not estimates. I proved, by quoting the BARB's own website, that they are estimates. I then ask you to explain how estimates can be very accurate, and instead of explaining how, you avoid the question and try to make out that I'm in the wrong. I ask a simple question, and because you and I know there's no answer, you instead ignore the question (which was simply my asking you to prove your words), and you resort to more attacks in yet another example of your childishness and inability to argue rationally.

Let's be honest here - you are a complete ****head. You libel people, you lie constantly, and you never give a straight answer to a question. And then you try to claim the high ground and make out that everyone else is somehow wrong and ignorant.

From now on I won't be answering any more of your posts. I gave you the chance to show some dignity for once, by asking you to not answer any more of my posts (so it would seem like you had made a conscious decision not to post any more ****), but you lack the maturity and intelligence needed even for that. So from now on, no matter what drivel you post, I'm ignoring you (I wish this site had an ignore feature, I imagine you'd be on scores of ignore lists), as there is clearly nothing to be gained from trying to reason with you, as instead you're so driven to compensate for what's so clearly lacking in your life that you feel the need to big yourself up online and using whatever sad tactics you can and not having the slightest clue that you're not looking clever and impressive, but are coming across as a spoilt child unable to think or behave properly.
Dec 18th, 2018, 2:25 pm
Dec 18th, 2018, 10:05 pm
LOL you are deranged :D All I've done is state facts and this is how you respond.

Doctor Who is a big success this series. I'm sorry this makes you so upset but that's your problem. Trying to pretend the ratings system is invalid just shows how poor your grip on reality is.
Dec 18th, 2018, 10:05 pm
Dec 20th, 2018, 1:54 am
Having watched the whole season as a new viewer who had not been following the Doctor Who series before I'll say that I found the 11th series to be underwhelming. Thanks for the new season, however, I've started watching the previous Doctor Who series and I'm now watching the Matt Smith's run as the 11th doctor. I suppose this might give me a less biased view of the show as it currently is.

The protagonist being a man was indeed significant to the show: the character's behaviour and dynamic with foes and companions is much more different than his female counterpart. While I've enjoyed Jodie's portrayal of the doctor (the bubbly positive character shtick is nothing but entertaining) I've noticed that the male doctors were all assertive (that is they were inclined to challenge enemies and assert their authority and opinions) and confident.

I'm not sure if this is Chibnall's fault (he has written most of the season's episodes after all) or if it has happened because of the amount of companions in this season but this new doctor seems to be fairly inept. Not because she's a woman, mind you, rather because the character has been constantly placed in situations where she being the doctor barely mattered on the episode. She couldn't change the events and refused to challenge the antagonists for example. Throughout the season several characters mocked or dismissed her and often the companions are the one providing comedic or insightful commentary.

Now some might say that this makes for an accurate representation of what it is to be a woman on a position of authority and while that may be true it still doesn't make for entertaining television. At least not when it comes to a more comedic science fiction show.

I liked Jodie's acting and her portrayal of the doctor but she did not behave (or was allowed to behave) as the protagonist. The doctor didn't feel like the protagonist on her own show.

Moreover the doctor often made decisions that didn't sound logical (and the character is usually portrayed as the smartest person in the room) such as berating someone for shooting a monstrous spider when the doctor herself would have let the spider die of suffocation/hunger on a locked room.

I found the lack of proper introductory scenes on each episode (scenes with the doctor in the tardis so as to establish why the doctor arrived on so and so location) to make the story confusing. There was hardly a satisfactory conclusion to most episodes (we never saw the doctor finding the tardis at the end of the Tsuranga Conundrum and there's no way of knowing what happened to the rest of the spiders found outside of the hotel in Arachnids on the UK for example).

I don't mind the lack of traditional antagonists such as the daleks or cybermen but none of the new antagonists were particularly interesting. There was never a sense of threat to the doctor or the companions. Even in the finale (that hastily solved the conflict in just one episode. Has that ever happened before on a season finale on the show?) there was hardly a sense of danger to anyone. Compare the finale to episodes such as The Empty Child or The Age of Steel. Was the doctor ever in danger?

Finally, I've found difficult to care much for the current companions. They are all average humans and yet none of them seems to be fazed by any of the events happening on the episodes. There was a pool of human remains and neither the doctor nor the companions seemed to be anywhere close to distressed or at least disgusted by it. It didn't warrant nothing but a single comment. Throughout the season there were several moments similar to this one where no one reacted to the supposedly dangerous situation they were facing.

The episodes were functional because they did managed to tell a story in an understandable way. Aside from that it's difficult to call the episodes bad or good since they were all underwhelming. The doctor did little more than walk about, make a vague reference to previous seasons, needlessly apologize and then declare that she didn't understand what was happening. The companions barely asked any questions (they weren't curious about the doctor's past or her previous adventures) or disagreed with the doctor. No one was ever taking risks or doing something spontaneous that could generate some character conflict.

I'll say, however, that since the episodes had such low stakes I found it easier to casually re-watch them as there's no need to be emotionally invested on the story or characters.

I do hope the show gets better in the future because the actress portraying the doctor is doing a fine job.
Dec 20th, 2018, 1:54 am