Doctor Who: The Collection Season 26 (Sylvester McCoy Season 3)

[RossyG]

But it only made $392,924,807 and cost $275m. Include advertising and the fact that cinemas keep half the money, it lost millions, so, flop.

And did you mean a worldwide $100 million or a North American $100m?

Don't forget, films years ago were released internationally months even a year or two after the American release, so you can't really compare them to modern films that are released internationally the same week.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, for example, opened in America on the 12th of June 1981; in the UK 30th July; in Australia 14th of August; in (West) Germany 29th October; and Japan the 5th December. It didn't open in the Soviet Union or China, of course, as those markets weren't open in those days.

And then there's the cost of cinema tickets. No premium prices for iMax or Dolby Digital back then. And if you take inflation into account, the biggest film of all time is neither Avatar nor Endgame but Gone With the Wind.

As you say, it's all relative. But it's a fact that Solo flopped.

[oddbox83]

Pardon me, but I keep clicking here thinking I'll find discussion about Doctor Who.

[RossyG]

Apologies for my part in the derailment.

I know how you feel every time I visit the Criterion UK thread and see pages and pages on Barnes and Noble.

[Pondosinatra]

Region 1???

[RossyG]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Region 1???

No, it's Blu-ray only.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Region 1???

I don't think it's been officially confirmed for North America yet.

[TigerManBlu-ray]

They're having replication problems with these seasons. We're not getting it until 2020.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Region 1???

I have it in good faith that the region A delays are to do with allowing further time for more thorough quality control before the sets are signed off for duplication. The plan is to eventually bring them back into more or less sync with the region B sets.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by LnM

Do not blaspheme!

Well alright then. Timelash isn't that bad.

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Nope, that was apparently a creative decision as the scene works without it on the SE. The DVD SE is a totally different re-edit, different scene ordering etc. to the transmitted versions. The VHS extended version just added extra bits into the transmitted version where they would fit.

Nope, it was a decision made very late as explained by Mark Ayes over on the Restoration website:

"This was a complicated one. Firstly, these lines are not on the 71 edits - it was an overdub. Problem is, we didn't have the time (or budget, really) for an overdub session, and the original overdub tapes are lost, so I'd have had to use the original mix at that point - this would have mucked up the new dub right at the end. So I decided to leave the lines out. I really felt that with Ace saying "I'm not scared anymore", followed by the Doctor and Ace looking at the "Dangerous Undercurrents" sign and the Doctor saying "Niet", that the point was made. The fact that the flashback sequence in the final confrontation with Fenric-Sorin has been restored also hammered home the "undercurrents" theme. If I'd noticed the missing lines earlier, we could have recorded them at the commentary session. But I didn't.

I don't think those lines are any great loss...and this is a new version with many other differences - large and small! I should also point out that neither version bears much relation to the original script at that point..."

Originally Posted by Aclea

Except it's not a commercial failure: even with constantly declining ratings, the show was still pulling in more viewers than Capaldi's last two seasons by any metric

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

Originally Posted by Aclea

Even the press has been overwhelmingly positive despite the terrible writing and bad character work, so again from the BBC's point of view it's a PR triumph rather than a disaster.

Well the press is complete SJW and supports what the BBC is doing even if it loses them all their viewers. It's the same with other franchises so that's complete rubbish for them.

Originally Posted by Aclea

Too many people who dislike the show's latest incarnation (and yes, the last season was terrible in so many ways) try to project their own dislike onto the show's general reception and commercial viability, building up wishful thinking scenarios where the BBC will see the error of its ways and purge the show of those they dislike

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

Originally Posted by Aclea

As far as the BBC is concerned, the last season of the show was a success and has attracted a new audience that more than compensates for any 'lost' fans that the Corporation haven't taken very seriously anyway since the 70s (though in all probability they're still doggedly watching it through gritted teeth).

Look man I know you're in denial but facts speak volumes. 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. You talk of others bias but it seems your own personal bias has blinded you from what people all over the Internet actually think of the show right now.

Originally Posted by Aclea

I think the echo chamber of the internet completely distorts the general audience reaction to certain properties,

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.

Originally Posted by Aclea

(by contrast, Whittaker will just have the usual three seasons).

From what i understand her and Chibnall are leaving after the second season.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by moorje

I don't get this criticism for Series 12 being too 'woke' when it was all done much better in Season 26.

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

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Galaxy's Edge is actually doing alright.

Galaxy's Edge isn't a theme park, it's basically an overpriced merchandise market with one ride.

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Disney Star Wars is doing just fine. Disney is raking in billions from it every year and it's one of their best-performing brands alongside Marvel, Frozen, Disney Princess, Cars and Toy Story.

Here's a thought for you: you've lost your hardcore fans and some of your casual fans. This means that you're relying on your new fans and some casual to watch the new SW movies. What happens when these fans get Disney make decisions that bore them into not wanting to watch? Those hardcore and casual fans are long gone and you ain't getting them back.

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Hasbro has already said they released Rogue One and TLJ merchandise way too early, which is what they've attributed the lower sales to.

Yeah because they're going to lie and say the mega company they produce merchandise for are putting out bad films.

Originally Posted by DrWally

Star Wars on the absolute floor is still putting up numbers that most other high profile franchises would love to have.

Solo failed to succeed as well as other Star Wars movies due to the release time but also Disney cash cowing the franchise. With all the stuff Disney has planned to further bore people expect to see those numbers go down with each successive movie and other form of media.

Originally Posted by RossyG

Virtue signalling beats out good stories every time in the woke media’s eyes. It’s all about staying “on message”.

Story telling is always key, not political agenda which is what the BBC currently likes to do. Storytelling is what fans will remember, not how many disabled people they managed to cram into a story just brownie points. You can't sell a TV show on a political agenda. It does not work like that folks. There has to be a story first before integrating political elements.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by pferreira

Nope, it was a decision made very late as explained by Mark Ayes over on the Restoration website:

It's still a creative one IMO, even if it was brought about initially by technical challenges. Mark has said more recently when asked if this would be "corrected":

I am not going to change that. It works, without the added lines stating the obvious.

So there is nothing to "fix", as was the purpose of my original comment. It's just a different viewing option, not intended to replace the original versions. You now get a choice of 3 viewing options for this story, after all, and 2 of which have the dialogue.

[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.

[thecooldud]

But it did flop. I know it TRIGGERS people to use real facts instead of spin, but the ratings collapsed week after week after week - the only season of New Who to go progressively downhill, not vary up or down, but worse and worse every episode, with the festive special being the lowest ranked EVER.
The fans hate it. The casual viewers don't care. The "new audience" (i.e the "woke" crowd who want to steal or destroy, but certainly not support) did not materialise, or if it did, they didn't stay. Merchandise sales have collapsed. Kids don't care either.

But no, like Magnus Greel would say, it was a BIG SUCCESS!

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by thecooldud

I know it TRIGGERS people to use real facts instead of spin

Why let the facts get in the way of a good hate?

As I've repeatedly said, the show's last season was crap - but S11 still ended up ahead of the game with numbers and reviews that the BBC will rightly regard as a success in today's marketplace (it's not as if they've cared if the show is any good since the 70s) no matter how much it TRIGGERS those who hate it to spin any gossamer thin thread they can find into the end of the world as Chibnall and Whittaker know it. That's the cold, hard reality of why the show isn't going to get any better any time soon. It's why the world got 8 Madea films and 5 Twilight movies and why only 11 of the 14 episodes of Firefly that were shot were broadcast but Here Comes Honey Boo Boo ran for four seasons. The ratings have a long way to go before they'll be regarded as a cause for concern, and by then Chibnall and Whittaker will already be on the traditional last third season.

[CouncilSpectre]

As far as the season 11 ratings go, the primary concern would be that by the end of the season it had already burned off the majority of the ‘new Doctor bump’. It shed 40% between episode 1 and episode 10. That’s the highest drop off across any series of nuWho in just 10 episodes.

Buoyed by the higher-rated early season episodes the seasonal average just under 8m doesn’t seem so bad, but the direction of travel must give cause for concern, especially given that the decline gave little indication of bottoming out - if the season had run to the traditional 12/13 episodes then it would most likely have ended the year in the 5-6m range, which is pretty much where Capaldi was.

It might be the case that the Beeb are comfortable with those numbers, but with no ‘new Doctor’ bump next season that seasonal average is only going one way.

It’s a shame for Whittaker as I think she’s capable of a lot more than what we got last season. Unfortunately though, as with Capaldi, she’s hamstrung by extremely poor writing imo.

[Aclea]

In today's marketplace I think the BBC is happy: even with the direction of travel, the season did better in the ratings (which have been in decline across the board for most TV shows for years: For example, it pulled in better numbers than the Poldark remake, which they gave five seasons) and they didn't cancel the show or change the showrunner when Eccleston's season shed the same number of viewers by the end of its run or when the ratings dropped for Capaldi. Indeed, their reaction to the surprisingly consistent trajectory (which did still see a very slight improvement for episode 10) was not to take time to learn lessons but to start physical production on the next season almost as soon as S11 finished.

Outside of the Whovian community, despite being a pretty terrible writer Chibnall is one of the blue-eyed boys of primetime TV: the response to the critical and online backlash to and downward trajectory of the ratings to season two of Broadchurch was to commission a third season. As long as the ratings don't do a Troy: Fall of a City (the BBC's most expensive show of last year, which was on just 1.6m viewers by episode four in a primetime Saturday night slot, with subsequent episodes pulling in such low ratings they didn't even make the published viewing figures charts), they'll probably do the same and, like Broadchurch, that'll be it from Chibnall. Though considering how long they kept JNT, even that can't be taken for granted...

In other words, time to stock up on old episodes and seasons (and inevitable replacement discs) and give up all hope of any improvement in the immediate future: the Who fans of previous regenerations and showrunners are going to have to prepare for a long siege before things get better. The relief column is still a long way off...

[CouncilSpectre]

Originally Posted by Aclea

In today's marketplace I think the BBC is happy: even with the direction of travel, the season did better in the ratings (which have been in decline across the board for most TV shows for years: For example, it pulled in better numbers than the Poldark remake, which they gave five seasons) and they didn't cancel the show or change the showrunner when Eccleston's season shed the same number of viewers by the end of its run or when the ratings dropped for Capaldi. Indeed, their reaction to the surprisingly consistent trajectory (which did still see a very slight improvement for episode 10) was not to take time to learn lessons but to start physical production on the next season almost as soon as S11 finished.

I agree with much of this, however it would be typical of Auntie not to heed the warning signs already there. I didn’t expect anything different yet, but I think come the end of next season, if the direction of travel carries over then you may see something happening ahead of season 13. From memory, Season 12 was greenlit on the strength of filmed episodes in the can and early critical reaction (and possibly the buoyant ratings for the first few episodes). It was only after that when things started turning sour.

Also worth pointing out that the slight uptick for the season finale is not unusual - only two of the previous ten finales was a drop (and one of those was 0.02m down from the previous episode).

Outside of the Whovian community, despite being a pretty terrible writer Chibnall is one of the blue-eyed boys of primetime TV: the response to the critical and online backlash to and downward trajectory of the ratings to season two of Broadchurch was to commission a third season. As long as the ratings don't do a Troy: Fall of a City (the BBC's most expensive show of last year, which was on just 1.6m viewers by episode four in a primetime Saturday night slot, with subsequent episodes pulling in such low ratings they didn't even make the published viewing figures charts), they'll probably do the same and, like Broadchurch, that'll be it from Chibnall. Though considering how long they kept JNT, even that can't be taken for granted...

Entirely possible of course. I think both RTD and Moffat stayed longer than they should have, of course that was after multiple years. Chibnall has already outstayed his welcome after just one season.

In other words, time to stock up on old episodes and seasons (and inevitable replacement discs) and give up all hope of any improvement in the immediate future: the Who fans of previous regenerations and showrunners are going to have to prepare for a long siege before things get better. The relief column is still a long way off...

Who hasn’t been top of my viewing for a long time, so I can definitely wait. Especially when my viewing backlog is already vast anyway. And, with the old series blus coming out, I’m getting my Who fix already!

[Aclea]

Absolutely, on all counts.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Series 11 is doing fine in the ratings. Yes, overnight ratings are lower than they've ever been but they've been dropping for years. The number BBC really cares about is the consolidated figures after 28 days. This is because less people are watching TV drama live and more are recording shows and watching later or watching on iplayer after broadcast. Basically, more people are watching Doctor Who at a time of their own convenience rather than watching live. Looking at those consolidated figures, Series 11 has been consistently averaging 8 million viewers which is nothing to be disappointed about especially compared to Series 10 which only averaged around 6 million viewers. And to compare, the lowest viewed episode of Series 11 is It Takes You Away with 6.42 million viewers which is still over 1 million more viewers than The Eaters Of Light (the lowest viewed episode of Series 10) which had 5.12 million viewers and around 1.54 million more people watched the Series 11 finale, The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos, within 28 days of broadcast than the Series 10 finale ,The Doctor Falls, within 28 days. To open it up a little more, more people watched the Series 11 finale than the finales for Series 1, 5 and 9 as well.

The overnight ratings have been dropping, but they've been dropping for years. It's the consolidated figures after 28 days that BBC cares about and they've been just fine. In fact, Series 11 averaged more viewers than both Series 9 and Series 10. Series 11 has been a ratings success.

Series 12 will be the real test, but as long as consolidated figures stay strong there shouldn't be any reason for BBC to panic. When discussing ratings, it's important we use the consolidated figures as Chibnall even confirmed in an interview that BBC doesn't really care about the overnights and only cares about the consolidated figures. I imagine this is because Doctor Who skews towards a younger audience who are less likely to watch live and more likely to watch at their convenience (or even wait until the series is over and binge watch it). I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, BBC start putting the whole series up on iPlayer before its BBC1 broadcast to encourage binge watching.

[MattMN]

Wondering about the VHS and DVD presentations - and whether they are going to be recreating/reconstructing the edits from the better remastered source material) or if they are going to release the original encodes? The press release says “rare restored extended cuts” but curious how they will be sourced. How was the picture quality for the special edit of Genesis of the Daleks handled for the first Tom Baker release… was that cleaned up (HD film sequences where appropriate, etc.)

Also very hopeful that a lot of the special features from the DVDs carry over for this one - previous press releases included the detail “also includes hours of extensive special features previously released on DVD” but I don’t see that here.

This leads me to wonder whether the extensive bonus features will all carry over for this set... What about the half-hour game show “Search Out Science” for example, that had the 7th Doctor, Ace, and K9 on it and in character? It was included on the DVD for Survival but no mention if it’ll be included with this set. Same with the clips featuring Anthony Ainley’s last performance as The Master - in the Destiny of the Doctors CD-ROM game. Hope all that makes it to the blu-ray release.

[MisterKorman]

Is a thread for Season 26 of the classic series really the place to bicker about Series Eleven?