[Aclea]

Originally Posted by pferreira

Okay I see this used a lot as an excuse as to Whittaker's tenure doing better. The truth is comparing Series 11 to 10 and maybe 9 isn't accurate. You're essentially comparing a new beginning for Doctor Who, with a new Doctor, new production teams along with Chibnall as well as a new style to Capaldi's last season with Moffat's last year on the job. That's six years of the same everything under Moffat!

Sorry, but for a series that's been running 11 series that seems an especially lame excuse. You don't even seem to realise that you're making my case for me: that an audience that found Capaldi's superior seasons old hat and stopped watching either came back for Whittaker or was replaced by a different and larger one that found the approach fresher. In much the same way that Venom did better than Into the Spider-Verse and Justice League pulled in more viewers than Logan. Quality does not equal the biggest audience these days. And in truth it never did.

Of course the ratings for Series 9 and 10 were bad, the show had run out of steam under Moffat. Saying Whittaker's season is a success because it did better than Capaldi's last

Except, as you are strenuously ignoring, the consolidated ratings haven't been as good since 2013: it was not just an issue of Capaldi's last two seasons.

like saying TMNT: Out of the Shadows is more a success than Ghostbusters: Answer the Call in that the former made more money when both still flopped!

Except Whittaker's series didn't flop. It's painful to have to admit it, but when you face up to the facts you will feel better. And on terrestrial TV, the more viewers is the very definition of success.

Compare Whittaker's first season to Matt Smith's first season or Chris Eccleston's first season. That's a more accurate comparison.

Indeed: they're almost the same as Eccleston's first season (which lost over 3m viewers over itsrun) and not as far off Smith's as you like to pretend, even with the general viewing figures for terrestrial TV declining year on year.

Well the press is complete SJW and supports what the BBC is doing even if it loses them all their viewers.

I take it you are somehow the Murdoch press, the Daily Mail or the Express?

It's done badly, that is an actual fact.

No, it's an opinion. I think the show is terrible but that doesn't change the fact that more people were watching it than watched better seasons with a better Doctor. I dioubt they're all hate-watching it.

Also a glance over on DoG comments whether on their article comments or Facebook seem to suggest a 90/10% like of the show in its current form.

And how many of the show's viewers actually post there? That's what I mean about an echo chamber.

Look man I know you're in denial but facts speak volumes.

You're the one paddling down that river. Like it or not - and from the way you keep on trying to deny it, you clearly don't - the show has found a large audience to more than compensate for the Whovians it supposedly lost.

They can keep going as they're going, making up any excuse they want for falling ratings but it won't make up for the fact the show is doing terribly.

So if the show doing higher ratings than it has in six years is 'doing terribly,' how do you describe the previous six years? And how do you explain away the fact that almost every TV show starts high and loses viewers as the run continues?

You talk of others bias but it seems your own personal bias

You see, this is where you betray your own bias: as I have stressed in every post, I think series 11 was awful and there's no sign of it getting better. I know it's easier to ignore that so you can put up the straw man that I'm some blind supporter of the show, but I'm not going by the low quality of the show in its present form (and the show has had plenty of troughs in its lifetimes): I'm going by the cold numbers. I'm not pretending that six whole years of lower numbers don't count. I'm pointing out that in today's TV marketplace the show has delivered the kind of numbers that make the show a success - and that success is why the show won't improve any time soon. I don't like that, but I accept the commercial reality means there's no incentive yet for the BBC to change.

has blinded you from what people all over the Internet actually think of the show right now.

And an absurdly small sample size compared to the actual audience the show pulls in. People are fond of pointing to the 21% user rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but that's based on a worldwide sample that is less than 0.001% of the UK viewing figures alone of her lowest rated episode.

The echo chamber is why critics, the BBC and Whittaker's fans think the new series has been a success. If anything it's the Internet where people are thinking for themselves.

Like I say, the internet can be an echo chamber of like minded people who only hear what they want to hear. It's the nature of fandom to seek out similar opinions and try to project them onto the public at large.

From what i understand her and Chibnall are leaving after the second season.

I'd put that down to wishful thinking. Last month aggrieved fans were spreading the rumour that Chibnall had been fired. Before season one even finished people were spreading the rumour that RTD was riding to the rescue to save the show and that she'd regenerate in the New Year's Day episode. It's no different to those who hated TLJ on the internet insisting it was a done deal that Kathleen Kennedy would be fired from Lucasfilm by last September, a rumour picked up by many online sites. Instead Disney extended her contract by three years and gave her a pay rise.

Everything was done better in Season 26 compared to Series 11.

On that I agree: season 26 was a big leap forward, ending on a strong story. But the show's ratings were far worse than series 11 in a time when the viewing pool for TV was much, much higher, and that's what gave the BBC the excuse to finally axe it. But as I said before - and you chose to ignore - quality has nothing to do with commercial success. And like it or not, by today's standards the ratings are good - even many big budget primetime US shows don't get ratings as good in a nation of 360m people as S11 got in the UK (the top rated show in the USA on Friday only pulled in 3.39m viewers). And that's why, as terrible as season 11 was (I've bolded it so you can't pretend I'm some biased fan again), there's no incentive to get rid of Chibnall or Whittaker before the usual three season schedule. Which means more of the depressingly badly executed same.

I'm afraid your bias is blinkering you to the I-don't-want-to-hear-it message that the cold hard numbers are sending out: more of the same or worse because more people are watching it. And that will only change if the ratings really go into freefall in the next season - and even then they'll probably give them a third season while they look for a replacement and have a rethink.