Doctor Who

[theentomologist]

Sorry but the viewing figures just prove that people watch the program it isn't an indicator of quality nor does it allow you to assume the reason why people watch, there are an incredible number of factors that effect viewing figures. Awards attained don't prove anything yet either, earlier doctors have won more awards than Smith has so far. Just because he's been nominated for a BAFTA doesn't make him a better Doctor either as he isn't likely to win imo.

I get that you have a chubby for Matt Smith but just because you think he's the best does not make that a fact nor does any justification you can think of. The only thing that makes him better for you is that you think he's better, don't get a sore arse when others don't share your opinion people have different preferences when it comes to stuff like that.

no. he's not the best. that would be baker 1. if we're subjectively going to just go with oooh I think this one's the best.

that he isn't likely to win is irrelevant -I don't see any that tennant was nominated for one. in fact name another doctor nominated for a bafta -for being the doctor.

I'm not annoyed that others have 'different preferences', I simply abhor idiocy.

[xbl]

I'm not annoyed that others have 'different preferences', I simply abhor idiocy.

Self loathing is always a painful thing.

By worldwide viewing figures then, does this make the current Doctor the best one ever? But okay, I'll work with you on this, if this is what you want to do. Here are some figures:

http://www.themindro...uk/ratings.html

Now, to really get a sense of the reception, we should really see how much of the audience that people kept per series. After all, looking at (say) just a series opener is an unfair test, just as looking at a closer alone is. The end of a series is when viewers have had the whole series, and those that are loyal have hung on to the big ender. So really, the best test is to compare openers, closers, and the difference between each. I'm also ignoring one shots and specials, preferring to focus on the duration over a whole series.

Eccleston:

Start: 10.81 End: 6.9 Diff: -3.91

Tennant:

Start: 8.6 End: 8.0 Diff: -0.6

Start: 8.7 End: 8.6 Diff: -0.1

Start: 9.1 End: 10.57 Diff: 1.47

Smith:

Start: 10.8 End: 6.1 Diff: -4.7

So what can we conclude from this?

Well Eccleston's Dr Who saw a fall throughout his single series of 3.91 million. That means that 3.91 million fewer watched the end to the series than the start. Matt Smith had a similar fall, losing 4.7 million viewers from a similar starting point. Tennant on the other hand had much smaller losses. He lost 0.6 million in his first series, 0.1 million in the second, and then had a gain for 1.47 million. So by sheer audience attrition, it could be argued that Tennant had longer to alienate people, and yet gained.

But there are a number of further points. Firstly, both Eccleston and Smith report similar episode opening and closing numbers. They started off bigger, but closed much smaller, than Tennant's three series'. Of course, the fall in percentage terms is also much greater, so thats not an argument either. Nor is the quality of writing an issue. Tennant posted his numbers after Eccleston had had a series. The two of them had the same cast, the same writers, the same sets, and the only real difference was the lead Actor. It made a big difference.

With Smith, they had new writers, cast, lead actor, and at best, it could be argued that the other stuff conspired against him, but that would involve trying to argue that the sets and writing were worse than under Davies, or Rose and family were better co actors and I don't buy that. Therefore, the most likely variable is the doctor. So there you have it, an analysis confirming that Tennant is the best Doctor.

Or this could be a load of bollocks, and its simply down to personal preference. But you're the one who demanded data. Want to argue my analysis?

Edited to add:

worldwide viewing figures -per episode- and awards attained -at least.

Show me your data. Don't even dare and quibble my analysis unless you have data to prove me wrong. You set the terms on this, not me.

Edited May 2, 2011 by xbl

[SGMilne]

Part of the problem with the Dr Who ratings is that it's on too early and doesn't have anything worthwhile on the lead-in or lead-out. Don't Scare the Hare - Doctor Who - So You Think You Can Dance.

What the BBC does now I believe - when taking ratings into consideration - is look at the overall figure, including the repeat and iPlayer views. More and more, the notion that people will watch something while it is on is becoming redundant.

So the 'Final Rating' for last week's episode was 8.9m, which is comparible with the Final Ratings with the series openers of 2, 3 and 4.

Also, Dr Who isn't a kids show; it may have initially been started as that, but it was also started as an educational show. It's classed as a show for all of the family to enjoy.

[South Lanarkshire Jag]

Scare the hare is the worst quiz show ive had the misfortune to witness the end of. Ever

[theentomologist]

Self loathing is always a painful thing.

oh rest assured I have plenty of self loathing but not for idiocy.

the data exists. it'll take a while. so don't go bugging me for it for a week or so.

[xbl]

oh rest assured I have plenty of self loathing but not for idiocy.

the data exists. it'll take a while. so don't go bugging me for it for a week or so.

Do you have an argument for my analysis?

[theentomologist]

Do you have an argument for my analysis?

you didn't look at episodes you looked at very specific start/ends and excluded specials.

[xbl]

you didn't look at episodes you looked at very specific start/ends and excluded specials.

Judging episodes and specials is a mistake. You cannot judge the approval of the public on a one episode snapshot. You could have people going "oh, I liked him, I'll look out for more", or "oh, I didn't like him, I'll watch again". That is why you need to look at trends and audience retention. You could pick a series of say 6 episodes and look at comparative trends, but really, the fairest comparison is to use the whole series. There will always be spikes and lulls based on media hype, the weather, opinions of friends, and so you will get individual spikes and lulls. These say nothing about people's perceptions of the actor playing the Doctor, too many unknown variables and not enough evidence to suggest a trend. I'm of the view that going by the whole series flattens out these unknowns to an extent and highlights trends.

To be more precise, you could take a mean of the first (say) 3 and last 3 episodes of each series and compare. That should mostly flatten out the unknowns and present enough information to demonstrate trends. I haven't done that myself, but I'm confident that my analysis would continue to hold true.

OR you admit that your flat statements and claims of data and evidence are nonsense, and its purely a subjective opinion, one which not everyone agrees with you on.

[Loki]

Give up entomologist, xbl is quite correct. All opinions are simply opinions gauging one preference over the other. It doesn't matter how much you love your birds tits, and there is data to support the fact that the majority of guys prefer tits, I will always prefer a girls bum. I can not be wrong, after all it is my preference.

Anyway I am not a Doctor Who fan but watched this episode with my niece who is seven. She absolutely loved it, and despite the fact I missed the first episode, I still enjoyed the episode, although I was a bit lost with what was happening. I thought Matt Smith was very good as the doctor, and his performance was more in line with my own opinion of what a doctor should be. A geeky eccentric with a subtle sense of humour. My niece absolutely adores Doctor Who and she says that a lot of people in her class watch it too. I will definitely catch the first episode now and catch the rest in this series.

[port-ton]

no. he's not the best. that would be baker 1. if we're subjectively going to just go with oooh I think this one's the best.

that he isn't likely to win is irrelevant -I don't see any that tennant was nominated for one. in fact name another doctor nominated for a bafta -for being the doctor.

I'm not annoyed that others have 'different preferences', I simply abhor idiocy.

So you're saying Smith is the best Doctor ever then? is that what we're agreeing on??

[theentomologist]

Judging episodes and specials is a mistake. You cannot judge the approval of the public on a one episode snapshot. You could have people going "oh, I liked him, I'll look out for more", or "oh, I didn't like him, I'll watch again". That is why you need to look at trends and audience retention. You could pick a series of say 6 episodes and look at comparative trends, but really, the fairest comparison is to use the whole series. There will always be spikes and lulls based on media hype, the weather, opinions of friends, and so you will get individual spikes and lulls. These say nothing about people's perceptions of the actor playing the Doctor, too many unknown variables and not enough evidence to suggest a trend. I'm of the view that going by the whole series flattens out these unknowns to an extent and highlights trends.

To be more precise, you could take a mean of the first (say) 3 and last 3 episodes of each series and compare. That should mostly flatten out the unknowns and present enough information to demonstrate trends. I haven't done that myself, but I'm confident that my analysis would continue to hold true.

OR you admit that your flat statements and claims of data and evidence are nonsense, and its purely a subjective opinion, one which not everyone agrees with you on.

its not nonsense.

Give up entomologist, xbl is quite correct. All opinions are simply opinions gauging one preference over the other. It doesn't matter how much you love your birds tits, and there is data to support the fact that the majority of guys prefer tits, I will always prefer a girls bum. I can not be wrong, after all it is my preference.

Anyway I am not a Doctor Who fan but watched this episode with my niece who is seven. She absolutely loved it, and despite the fact I missed the first episode, I still enjoyed the episode, although I was a bit lost with what was happening. I thought Matt Smith was very good as the doctor, and his performance was more in line with my own opinion of what a doctor should be. A geeky eccentric with a subtle sense of humour. My niece absolutely adores Doctor Who and she says that a lot of people in her class watch it too. I will definitely catch the first episode now and catch the rest in this series.

he's not though. I am pretty busy and would have to assemble a vast amount of data to point this out though, so I might let it go on this occasion/for the moment despite being right.

edit to add: the whole tits bum thing is evolution/chemistry. not opinion and your body could be considered a closed system for those purposes.

So you're saying Smith is the best Doctor ever then? is that what we're agreeing on??

don't be ridiculous.

Edited May 2, 2011 by theentomologist

[port-ton]

But smith has been nominated for a BAFTA and no other doctor has, so that makes him better than the rest right??

Or do awards only count when it suits your argument??

[theentomologist]

But smith has been nominated for a BAFTA and no other doctor has, so that makes him better than the rest right??

Or do awards only count when it suits your argument??

well. if we're going to delve into argumentative semantics fair enough yes. He is. He's also the best written Doctor too.

[port-ton]

Argumentative semantics

Basically what you mean is your logic is flawed and opinions are entirely subjective.

[Ad Lib]

Anyway, shut the f**k up.

I watched through the whole of last series yesterday and today looking for some pointers on this "Silence [or is it "Silents"] will fall" theme they alluded back to in that double-header. Nothing completely obvious, but by Time Lord was that a bloody good series! Was good to get a steer on the chronology of the River Song encounters again. The way everything was so carefully orchestrated throughout the episodes leading up to the big reveal without making it remotely clear until then what was going to happen was just... wow.

[SGMilne]

Ratings discussion aside, I've very much enjoyed the latest series of Doctor Who so far, and I'm looking forward to seeing how that plot with the little girl develops.

Incidentally, for any fans of the 'Old' series, I've started reviewing all the stories from the very beginning on my blog, so feel free to take a look (link in sig)

[Loki]

edit to add: the whole tits bum thing is evolution/chemistry. not opinion and your body could be considered a closed system for those purposes.

[xbl]

its not nonsense.

If you want to go with awards instead, then David Tennant has, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Tennant

• 2006 TV Quick and TV Choice Award, Best Actor: Doctor Who^[/url]
• 2006 National Television Award, Best Actor: Doctor Who
• 2007 Welsh BAFTAs, Best Actor, Doctor Who
• 2007 The Constellation Awards, Best Male Performance in a 2006 Science Fiction Television Episode: Doctor Who: The Girl In The Fireplace
• 2007 TV Quick and TV Choice Award, Best Actor: Doctor Who
• 2007 National Television Awards, Most Popular Actor
• 2008 The Constellation Awards, Best Male Performance in a 2007 Science Fiction Television Episode: Doctor Who: Human Nature/The Family Of Blood
• 2008 TV Quick and TV Choice Award, Best Actor: Doctor Who
• 2008 National Television Award, Outstanding Drama Performance: Doctor Who
• 2010 National Television Award, Outstanding Drama Performance: Doctor Who
• 2010 The Constellation Awards, Best Male Performance in a 2009 Science Fiction Television Episode: Doctor Who: The Waters of Mars

And that is only including David Tennant personally, not any of the more general awards (best show, best writing etc.). I couldn't find a similar list for Matt Smith, perhaps you could furnish? Is it as long? And before you try and argue that Tennant had more time to rack em up, remember, you're arguing that Smith is the best now! So by awards Tennant wins, by audience numbers, Tennant wins, how can you possibly argue against facts?

...unless you just admit that the whole thing is subjective!

[Mr. Brightside]

Tennant is the best. FACT.

^ that has more basis than anything theentomologist has said.

[Loki]

...unless you just admit that the whole thing is subjective!

Why would he admit that now? I am pretty sure I see another couple of shovels he can continue to dig his hole with.