Re: Doctor Who
 

To be fair the first female Doctor Who was always likely to bring in the viewers. However the figures were apparently strong for the second episode too.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I think in the longer run, moving it to Sunday will prove to have been very good for ratings, especially as it’s bookended by Countryfile and the Strictly results.

Re: Doctor Who
 

No its not. A new Doctor has always boosted the figures.
Its only a little more than other new Doctors, which was always to be expected, given the circumstances.

Christopher Eccleston was 10.81
Matt Smith was 10.09
Peter Capaldi was 9.17
David Tennant was 9.84

All the above were on Saturdays

Re: Doctor Who
 

I think over the last 20 years or so, Saturday TV has changed.. When I was a kid (and even up to the late 90s, when I definitely wasn't a kid), Saturday morning TV was kids TV. Some sort of two or three hour show with several presenters, with guests (who were usually current pop starts, or actors from TV shows/films), loads of kids, the odd game, cartoons or other kids TV shows, and music. Going Live, Live and Kicking, Tiswas, CDUK etc. Then , come the afternoon, it was sport, sport and more sport (or old films, old films and more old films if you watched BBC2 or Channel 4) . I was usually out by this time, so didn't bother watching TV. Then, come the evening (and night), we got some light entertainment family shows (such as Noel's House Party) or game shows, followed by more game shows, then a big (usually expensive) drama or sitcom.

Now, all Saturday seems to consist of is cooking shows in the morning (which essentially take the same form as the kids shows of the past, but replace all the games and cartoons with bits about cooking), "talent" shows in the evening, and any generic crap they find in the cupboard between the two.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I do believe that the second episode maintained high ratings though.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Figures are hard to come by atm, but on DS they quoted 7.1 Million.

The last season averaged about 5 million, so its doing better atm.
We'll see how it goes as the season progresses, and the novelty wears off.

Re: Doctor Who
 

That would be the overnight. Consolidated figures (including catch-up) aren’t compiled until 8 days post broadcast, and aren’t published until 14 days post broadcast, except for subscribers to BARB.

Doctor Who has always been the BBC’s leading performer when it comes to improvement in consolidated ratings over overnights. I won’t be surprised if the consolidated figure gets very close to 9 million if the overnight was 7.1.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Either way the BBC must be pretty pleased with the reception both audience and critical reception.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I hope this isnt the road its taking.

Its turning from a police box into a soap box.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Soap Box?

It's a very important historical event. I thought it was a great story to cover and it was brilliantly done.

Re: Doctor Who
 

I was worried about it tbh. I thought that the seriousness of the subject matter combined with the family-friendly, lighthearted, feel of Doctor Who would clash and it would be exploitative. In the end I thought they did a good job of it and had just the right amount of intervention in the story without changing it. Having the idea being they need to maintain the course of history rather than actively setting it happen was good.

I did think there was a bit too much sledgehammer exposition though.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Last night's episode was a bit of a mess. Shame, as the first 2 were good.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Most people I know really enjoyed the episode and from Twitter comments it was mostly positive.

Re: Doctor Who
 

Yes, I'm sure the Twits loved it, thats not much of a recomendation my book.

And yes, it was basically just a soapbox rant about racism, I presume you didnt miss the obvious dig at current policing ?
(and lets not forget last weeks anti war digs)

Shame because it could have been a good story about non inteference.

What about the (so called) villian, who managed to escape some high security prison but seemed totally incompetant at stopping anything in 1955, and then just got handily sent to the past (and how did the companion suddenly know how to control, set and use that advanced gun/device).

And if sent to the past, how come he (obviously) hasnt changed anything else, so history has just merrily carried on as if he never existed.

Three episodes in and this feels nothing like Doctor Who to me.
I dont know how to put this but find I have no "investment" with the main charecter, if this doctor were in peril, I would not feel bothered.
If the Doctor died, it would just be "meh". The companions are more interesting an appealing that the main character now, esp Bradley Walsh's.
(Even so, its a sad testiment that after theee episodes, I cannot remember any of their names in the programme, which is a first).

Re: Doctor Who
 

The villain was just there to push the story on a bit. I wouldn't say he knew how to use the weapon, he just dialled back as far as it could and pushed the button. So the guy could have ended up in prehistoric times.

It was a good representation of the era I felt and yes of course there was a comment about modern policing, it fitted in perfectly I felt.

In the end it all they did was get things back on track and let the event play out as they should have and no real interference or changes really happened.

I have really enjoyed all 3 episodes so far and feel that Ryan is the most useless of the 3 companions so far. Looks like we will find out more about Yas and her family in this weeks episode,