|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 20, 2020 15:32:04 GMT
The BBC seems to have instructed Chibnall to change the show, include more of its old history and creatures and have a season wide plot of some kind; or in other words make it more like the past season of 'New Who'. This in a hope it would bring back viewers and stop the decline. Clearly this is not happening, and with the HBO deal and all that entails this may mean that some of them may be justifiably worried for their own jobs. This is the reason why "Get woke, go broke" is such a meme these days. Unless the average person knows in advance that they're looking at "educational" fare or "social satire", they're going to grab a piece of entertainment because they want to be entertained... and for most people, constant insertions of political matter aren't entertaining. Material that favors their views might be looked at anyway simply because of this, but past a certain point even people who might otherwise agree are going to have their fill and tune out. Entire franchises have been damaged because of this, and entire companies are in danger of going bust because they don't understand this fact. that "get woke, go broke" sounds like to me is a constant insertion of political matter by petulant misogynists who feel threatened by the possibility that people might be okay with women leading shows. or to be blunt, it sounds like a slogan pitched as part of a sexist temper tantrum. or to be even more blunt: it sounds like the slogan of an organized campaign that bears a remarkable similarity to every other campaign against equality. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 21, 2020 16:00:58 GMT
This is the reason why "Get woke, go broke" is such a meme these days. Unless the average person knows in advance that they're looking at "educational" fare or "social satire", they're going to grab a piece of entertainment because they want to be entertained... and for most people, constant insertions of political matter aren't entertaining. Material that favors their views might be looked at anyway simply because of this, but past a certain point even people who might otherwise agree are going to have their fill and tune out. Entire franchises have been damaged because of this, and entire companies are in danger of going bust because they don't understand this fact. that "get woke, go broke" sounds like to me is a constant insertion of political matter by petulant misogynists who feel threatened by the possibility that people might be okay with women leading shows. or to be blunt, it sounds like a slogan pitched as part of a sexist temper tantrum. or to be even more blunt: it sounds like the slogan of an organized campaign that bears a remarkable similarity to every other campaign against equality. And it sounds to me as if you are parroting the excuses being made by 'creatives' who lack any ability to actually write good characters and stories and have even less ability to understand their own limitations. Remember how the line from Chibnall was 'oh, its just sexist men intimidated by a female character'? Well I'd love to know how he came to that conclusion given that A; People are complaining about the writing and acting, not the actual gender of the Doctor (beyond, incorrectly, stating that gender changing was against Who canon. And no I'm not even talking about Moffet's run. This possibility was mentioned way back when Pertwee was the Doctor. It just wasn't seen until Moffets run) and B; In a recent interview Chibnall stated outright that he DOESN'T READ OR PAY ATTENTION TO CRITICISM. The 'WOKE' aspect is about confusing Political with Philosophical, and telling rather than asking. These are people who are so convinced that they are wonderful, right, perfect and talented that only 'right wing, sexist, racist trolls' could possibly have any problems with what they are defecating. After all they are WOKE, and therefore naturally superior to all others in every way. Examples? Well you have, in recent times, Terminator Dark Fate and Charlies Angels. Both directors talked smack about how their films had 'strong female characters' and 'would scare men', with the director of CA basically saying she didn't want men to see the film. Both films crashed, HARD, prompting both to blame everything and everyone but themselves. The director of CA even went as far as to blame men for not supporting the film. You know, the people she said she didn't want to go see the film. As for audiences not wanting a female lead...Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Underworld film series, the Resident Evil film series, Battlestar Galactica (reimagined), Bones, Kill Bill, Star Trek Voyager...well they kind of show the lie behind that idea. As indeed do the viewer figures, and the nature of their decline, in regards Doctor Who; These show a gradual and continual decline in keeping with people simply getting bored and not bothering to put it on their 'most watch' or even 'watch later' list. The simple reality is that your average person tunes in to watch shows, or goes to see a film, to be entertained not lectured to. This entertainment angle is something these idiots are ignoring, which beggars belief considering it is called the Entertainment Industry. The 'Access Media' has been playing along because, well it makes for good headlines and hopefully makes the studio feel more inclined to give them access to exclusive information/material in future. They attack people, following the lines set by the studios, because they feel superior and YouTubers in particular since the latter is making them redundant; Something that has very much been the case since 2010's Mass Effect 3's fiasco resulted in fewer and fewer people taking the traditional games 'journalists' seriously. (Because nothing screams 'impartial review' more that copy-pasting the games own marketing as most of your review. And yes that happened in at least two cases) The same thing is happening with film and TV now. With the traditional 'journalists' following the Studio's lead of 'if you don't like this you must be a right wing 'ist' or Russian Bot'. This alienates their own customers. Again case in point is Collider Video, which went from THE place you went to get film news and reviews to being closed down at the start of the year. (The staff were given an hours notice. Hopefully most of them will be able to go on to other things). All of this because they started to parrot the company line they ended up alienating a large chunk of their audience and being considered unreliable by most of the rest. (Seriously, they were getting fewer views per video than independent reviewers on smaller channels). There was more to the Collider story than this of course. But following the 'WOKE' mindset and line was a major factor in people looking elsewhere. In short the 'ist' defense is a useful pack of lies, trying to shame people into investing in a product or shutting up and not complaining. Closer examination and actual investigation, something of an anathema to the studios, 'creatives' and media, shows a different picture. yes, you will always get some who are 'ists' but the majority of people couldn't care less what gender, colour or sexual orientation a character is if they are well written and the stories are entertaining. If season 11 of Who had been of similar quality to seasons 1-7, and Jodie Whittakers performance was equal to that, viewer figures would be very different. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 21, 2020 16:28:26 GMT
that "get woke, go broke" sounds like to me is a constant insertion of political matter by petulant misogynists who feel threatened by the possibility that people might be okay with women leading shows. or to be blunt, it sounds like a slogan pitched as part of a sexist temper tantrum. or to be even more blunt: it sounds like the slogan of an organized campaign that bears a remarkable similarity to every other campaign against equality. And it sounds to me as if you are parroting the excuses being made by 'creatives' who lack any ability to actually write good characters and stories and have even less ability to understand their own limitations. Remember how the line from Chibnall was 'oh, its just sexist men intimidated by a female character'? Well I'd love to know how he came to that conclusion given that A; People are complaining about the writing and acting, not the actual gender of the Doctor (beyond, incorrectly, stating that gender changing was against Who canon. And no I'm not even talking about Moffet's run. This possibility was mentioned way back when Pertwee was the Doctor. It just wasn't seen until Moffets run) and B; In a recent interview Chibnall stated outright that he DOESN'T READ OR PAY ATTENTION TO CRITICISM. The 'WOKE' aspect is about confusing Political with Philosophical, and telling rather than asking. These are people who are so convinced that they are wonderful, right, perfect and talented that only 'right wing, sexist, racist trolls' could possibly have any problems with what they are defecating. After all they are WOKE, and therefore naturally superior to all others in every way. Examples? Well you have, in recent times, Terminator Dark Fate and Charlies Angels. Both directors talked smack about how their films had 'strong female characters' and 'would scare men', with the director of CA basically saying she didn't want men to see the film. Both films crashed, HARD, prompting both to blame everything and everyone but themselves. The director of CA even went as far as to blame men for not supporting the film. You know, the people she said she didn't want to go see the film. As for audiences not wanting a female lead...Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Underworld film series, the Resident Evil film series, Battlestar Galactica (reimagined), Bones, Kill Bill, Star Trek Voyager...well they kind of show the lie behind that idea. As indeed do the viewer figures, and the nature of their decline, in regards Doctor Who; These show a gradual and continual decline in keeping with people simply getting bored and not bothering to put it on their 'most watch' or even 'watch later' list. The simple reality is that your average person tunes in to watch shows, or goes to see a film, to be entertained not lectured to. This entertainment angle is something these idiots are ignoring, which beggars belief considering it is called the Entertainment Industry. The 'Access Media' has been playing along because, well it makes for good headlines and hopefully makes the studio feel more inclined to give them access to exclusive information/material in future. They attack people, following the lines set by the studios, because they feel superior and YouTubers in particular since the latter is making them redundant; Something that has very much been the case since 2010's Mass Effect 3's fiasco resulted in fewer and fewer people taking the traditional games 'journalists' seriously. (Because nothing screams 'impartial review' more that copy-pasting the games own marketing as most of your review. And yes that happened in at least two cases) The same thing is happening with film and TV now. With the traditional 'journalists' following the Studio's lead of 'if you don't like this you must be a right wing 'ist' or Russian Bot'. This alienates their own customers. Again case in point is Collider Video, which went from THE place you went to get film news and reviews to being closed down at the start of the year. (The staff were given an hours notice. Hopefully most of them will be able to go on to other things). All of this because they started to parrot the company line they ended up alienating a large chunk of their audience and being considered unreliable by most of the rest. (Seriously, they were getting fewer views per video than independent reviewers on smaller channels). There was more to the Collider story than this of course. But following the 'WOKE' mindset and line was a major factor in people looking elsewhere. In short the 'ist' defense is a useful pack of lies, trying to shame people into investing in a product or shutting up and not complaining. Closer examination and actual investigation, something of an anathema to the studios, 'creatives' and media, shows a different picture. yes, you will always get some who are 'ists' but the majority of people couldn't care less what gender, colour or sexual orientation a character is if they are well written and the stories are entertaining. If season 11 of Who had been of similar quality to seasons 1-7, and Jodie Whittakers performance was equal to that, viewer figures would be very different. well, the first flaw in that is that I have already stated I like Jodie Whittaker's doctor better than I like the grumpy scotsman. her doctor acts and talks more like the previous doctors. therefore it should be self evident that I believe people should have either not liked the doctors between the reboot and the grumpy scotsman, or they are specifically objecting to the newest doctor's gender when they claim to not like the new doctor. second: my remark was specifically about the "get woke go broke" slogan. in college, I took a couple years of shakespeare studies. the fuirst rule in the class was we were forbidden from calling Hamlet a "wimp" the purpose of the ban, as explained by the instructor, was because as soon as we called Hamlet a wimp, all further analysis of his character stopped. similarly, when people apply "get woke, go broke" to an entertainment property, whatever reasoning might have been in progress immediately stops. never mind that female led ghostbusters was supposed to be a tongue in cheek riff on the memes used in the original. it was "woke" therefore it was unacceptable. never mind that Star Wars was always intended to be space opera, always had cheesy dialogue, always depended on effects above acting ability, and always relied on a deus ex machina called "the force" the new episodes had a female lead, therefore was "woke" and therefore was unacceptable. you're right: the majority of people could care less, as long as it is entertainment. but when the minority of people attack a movie, the majority tend to become sheeple. the "get woke go brokers" are trying to capitalize on that by pushing the entertainment industry to only make stuff that THEY want to see. I don't know if you're referring to the second generation Charlie's Angels or the third generation charlie's angels if it's the third generation, maybe they should have tried not casting girls who are typecast as bimbos to be the angels. I chose to skip it based solely on who they had cast as the angels. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 22, 2020 21:56:17 GMT
*Deep sigh*
No, this isn't a response to the above this is something else.
In a case of 'do some actual investigation' an online news source posted an article saying the last episode of Who was the lowest watched since 1989. Now this is kind of true...if you totally ignore that back in the 80's you either watched the show live or not at all where as today you can watch later online. The latter adds, as I've noted, roughly 1.5 million to the total and thus we have the consolidated figures.
This article however just uses and compares the overnight figures. Which in turn means that this is NOT the least watched episode of Who by that criteria - it would in fact be an episode of Capaldi's last season which managed a depressing 2.8 million viewers.
*Sighs*
The shows ratings are in a continual downwards spiral, and even the consolidated figures seem to be showing fewer and fewer people are catching up. You really don't need to make such easy to disprove claims...
Anyway;
So your argument boils down to 'Since I like this everyone else should unless they are sexist'?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 23, 2020 1:41:07 GMT
*Deep sigh* No, this isn't a response to the above this is something else. In a case of 'do some actual investigation' an online news source posted an article saying the last episode of Who was the lowest watched since 1989. Now this is kind of true...if you totally ignore that back in the 80's you either watched the show live or not at all where as today you can watch later online. The latter adds, as I've noted, roughly 1.5 million to the total and thus we have the consolidated figures. This article however just uses and compares the overnight figures. Which in turn means that this is NOT the least watched episode of Who by that criteria - it would in fact be an episode of Capaldi's last season which managed a depressing 2.8 million viewers. *Sighs* The shows ratings are in a continual downwards spiral, and even the consolidated figures seem to be showing fewer and fewer people are catching up. You really don't need to make such easy to disprove claims... Anyway; So your argument boils down to 'Since I like this everyone else should unless they are sexist'? no, it boils down to "since Whittaker is more like previous doctors than Capaldi, people who claim Whittaker is doing it wrong, because she isn't enough like earlier whos, but liked Capaldi, are displaying a bias." |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 29, 2020 15:02:24 GMT
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS
The overnight viewer figures show episode 5 had a slight increase to 4.2 million from the 4.02 million the week before.
However. AGAIN: SPOILERS AHEAD
This episode saw the appearance of Captain Jack, a character fans had been screaming to see again for years, so this increase seems to indicate those former fans are simply not paying attention to 'leaks' about the series and/or no longer care. It should, however, result in higher consolidated figures as news spreads and more people go to see Jack one last time.
I say 'last time' because Chibnall decided to throw Who canon out of the window for the sake of 'Diversity'. Oh look there is a 'Woman of colour' of is 'gasp' The Doctor! Yes, apparently the fact that WE HAVE ALL THE INCARNATIONS OF THE DOCTOR TO DATE, and it was SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE 11TH DOCTOR PLAYED BY MATT SMITH WAS THE LAST OF THE ORIGINAL REGENERATIONS UNTIL THE TIME LORDS STEPPED IN, Chibnall decided to pleasure himself and show how 'WOKE' he is.
To say this is going to go over badly is probably an understatement. Especially since Chibnal claims this was indeed the Doctor* and Jack will not be back this season. That statement is, in itself, going to destroy what little interest the Who fanbase, you know the ones who actually buy merchandise and put the show on their must watch list.
I'm not going to be surprised in the slightest if viewer numbers take a dive next episode as the few remaining long time fans go back to watching box sets of prior seasons and don't bother returning.
*Of course Chibnal also claims to be a writer and that all the negative reactions are from 'sexist, toxic men', even though he stated that he doesn't actually read any reviews or comments about the show.
SPOILERS END
In other news it is being reported that Whittaker has signed on for another season, although as of writing I'm unaware of any official statement from the BBC on this.
This is probably more to do with the streaming deal the BBC has with HBO Max, with the BBC deciding that the costs of making anther season is lower than the costs of breaking the deal.
Of course this means that based on the trends of seasons 11&12 they could be spending a lot of money producing a show that is pulling in less than 3 million, possibly even below 2 million for a season 13. This would be indefensible in regards the BBC's charter, and could potentially cost the BBC its license.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2020 15:28:33 GMT
WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS The overnight viewer figures show episode 5 had a slight increase to 4.2 million from the 4.02 million the week before. However. AGAIN: SPOILERS AHEADThis episode saw the appearance of Captain Jack, a character fans had been screaming to see again for years, so this increase seems to indicate those former fans are simply not paying attention to 'leaks' about the series and/or no longer care. It should, however, result in higher consolidated figures as news spreads and more people go to see Jack one last time. I say 'last time' because Chibnall decided to throw Who canon out of the window for the sake of 'Diversity'. Oh look there is a 'Woman of colour' of is 'gasp' The Doctor! Yes, apparently the fact that WE HAVE ALL THE INCARNATIONS OF THE DOCTOR TO DATE, and it was SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE 11TH DOCTOR PLAYED BY MATT SMITH WAS THE LAST OF THE ORIGINAL REGENERATIONS UNTIL THE TIME LORDS STEPPED IN, Chibnall decided to pleasure himself and show how 'WOKE' he is. To say this is going to go over badly is probably an understatement. Especially since Chibnal claims this was indeed the Doctor* and Jack will not be back this season. That statement is, in itself, going to destroy what little interest the Who fanbase, you know the ones who actually buy merchandise and put the show on their must watch list. I'm not going to be surprised in the slightest if viewer numbers take a dive next episode as the few remaining long time fans go back to watching box sets of prior seasons and don't bother returning. *Of course Chibnal also claims to be a writer and that all the negative reactions are from 'sexist, toxic men', even though he stated that he doesn't actually read any reviews or comments about the show. SPOILERS ENDIn other news it is being reported that Whittaker has signed on for another season, although as of writing I'm unaware of any official statement from the BBC on this. This is probably more to do with the streaming deal the BBC has with HBO Max, with the BBC deciding that the costs of making anther season is lower than the costs of breaking the deal. Of course this means that based on the trends of seasons 11&12 they could be spending a lot of money producing a show that is pulling in less than 3 million, possibly even below 2 million for a season 13. This would be indefensible in regards the BBC's charter, and could potentially cost the BBC its license. to be a spoiler it has to be comprehensible. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 4, 2020 6:04:28 GMT
Overnight viewers for episode 6 are in and have fallen below the 4 million figure at 3.97 million. The consolidated figures for the prior episode are also in, showing a total of 5.42 million (the overnight was 4.21 million).
Now the consolidated figures are actually interesting, or worrying depending on your point of view. Something I caught a YouTuber talking about; I'd link but I tend to find the guy annoying. That said he did note something I'd kind of noticed but missed.
Back in season 10, Capaldi's last, 'watch again' viewers were adding between 1.7 and 2 million viewers to the overnight figures per episode.
Season 11 started with watch again adding some 2 million, but quickly declined to around 1.3-1.5 million.
Season 12 has seen the watch again figures drop to just over a million.
This is and should be deeply worrying for the BBC, as it shows that unlike Capadi's seasons Chibnal and Whittaker are shedding viewers across the board and even bringing an old fan favourite, Captain Jack, back isn't bringing many old fans back.
At this rate the season will end with consolidated figures just north of 4 million (probably around 4.2 or so). Although another dive such as with this week could easily result in the season dropping below the 4 million figure; meaning that between the start of season 11 and the end of season 12 Who will have lost close to 7 million viewers after 20 episodes and one 'special'.
Capaldi shed 4 million give or take over some 36 episodes and god knows how many specials.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 10, 2020 16:32:21 GMT
The overnight for episode 7 are in and show another drop to 3.81 million. The consolidated figures for episode 6 are in and show a total of 5.09 million viewers.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 6, 2021 15:26:36 GMT
current rumor is this is whitaker's last season as the doctor, but not Chibnall's last season as showrunner.
guess that gives us an opportunity to find out which is responsible for the decline.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 6, 2021 20:47:06 GMT
current rumor is this is whitaker's last season as the doctor, but not Chibnall's last season as showrunner. guess that gives us an opportunity to find out which is responsible for the decline. The rumor I'm hearing is that the ratings for the show have been so dismal, and the show itself so mired in controversy, that Whitaker's agent basically told her "if you don't leave now, it could be the end of your career in the UK". Either way, though, it raises the question of who would replace her, or if the show will even be allowed to continue. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2021 0:54:51 GMT
current rumor is this is whitaker's last season as the doctor, but not Chibnall's last season as showrunner. guess that gives us an opportunity to find out which is responsible for the decline. The rumor I'm hearing is that the ratings for the show have been so dismal, and the show itself so mired in controversy, that Whitaker's agent basically told her "if you don't leave now, it could be the end of your career in the UK". Either way, though, it raises the question of who would replace her, or if the show will even be allowed to continue. who the next doctor will be is always a question that comes up. they question the brits are asking is why they are leaving Chibnall at the reins. |
|
