Sunday, 15 April 2007

Not Much Else to Say so....

Doctor Who last night was quite cool though i didn't pick up on the religious allegories currently being discussed over at Outpost Gallifrey - and am frankly not that interested in them. I thought I'd post some irrelevant information about ratings that nonetheless sends a lovely shiver up the spine of fans like me who grew up amid episodes like Battlefield pt 1 getting 3.1m viewers and season 26 -which I remember thinking was brilliant though I don't agree with my 13 year old self anymore - getting an average of 4 million up against Coronation St. So. Ratings for Series 3 of Doctor Who so far:

Smith and Jones: (consolidated figure): 8.71m
The Shakespeare Code: 6.8m
Gridlock: 8.0m


The consolidated figure includes tapings, whereas the other two figures are overnights - the people who just watched it as it was broadcast.

Say what you like about new Who - and I'm still not wholly convinced by RTD's emotionally incontinent, omnisexual approach - to see these figures, is, especially for someone who grew up in the dark C Baker and McCoy periods, when the show was regarded with contempt and indifference, wonderful! RTD has preserved the world's greatest television programme for future generations to cherish and has done it very well indeed.

UPDATE 19 APRIL: The Shakespeare Code's final figure is 7.23m.

8 comments:

Matt M said...

In terms of viewing figures it beat the Man U/Watford match.

I thought it was the weakest episode so far, but that's largely because the first two were so good. The biggest problem was the plot resolution - "if I connect this thing to that thing: bingo! Everyone's free!" RTD - as much as he deserves praise for making the show successful again - just can't do good SF plots. The set-up's interesting, the characters are good, the dialogue's great... but the endings fall flat.

Some good writers coming up from the looks of things though. Paul Cornall and Steven Moffat are back and their stories, I suspect, will be highlights of the season. It's just a shame that they got Chris 'Torchwood' Chibell (or whatever his name is) to write one.

The Tin Drummer said...

Can't disagree with any of that, except that Chris wotsit was also a Life on Mars writer (I think it was he who claimed that Sam Tyler was named after Rose Tyler!).

The first two were indeed excellent - much better than last year's opening offerings.

james higham said...

You two are so into it and I'm a Who fan from 1996 [last chance to see it]. 'Omnisexual approach'? On screen?

It seems to ahve got beyond me now. I tried to follow the Billy Piper era [who was the one who quit, saying he was typecast as the Doc?]

I have soundbites here:

"If you are an alien, how come you sound like you're from the north?"

"Lots of planets have a north."

The Tin Drummer said...

I mean that RTD likes to use Doctor Who to make his point that sexuality is fluid etc etc which I find rather tiresome but there you go.

Billie Piper was the companion! She did leave but why I'm not quite sure. She came in with Chris Eccleston who did quit saying he was typecast or something.

That quote is from the first episode of the new Who, in 2005. Very cool it is too.

Matt M said...

which I find rather tiresome but there you go

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't keep making a point of it. Fluid sexuality as part of the background of future humanity is fine, but it often feels like they've put it in just to shock.

Ironically, I think they handled it best with Jack kissing Rose and the Doctor at the end of the first series - it worked because it was completely in character, in keeping with the moment and wasn't commented on.

Contrast that with the "you know we're not sisters" dialogue in the last episode.

(Although I did like the "67 academics just punched the air" bit in last week's - though largely because a couple of uni friends no doubt did the same.)

The Tin Drummer said...

I didn't like that bit - I hate people making claims to Shakespeare. I agree that the Jack bit was better but I dislike Jack as a character anyway. I don't think it's to shock - just to show that the future clearly consists of RTDs ethics. I never like writers trying that - that's why I loathe 3001, despite loving all the other books - Arthur C just got carried away with hoping his views will become standard in the future (IMHO as far as my O is ever H).

james higham said...

TD, try these:

http://nourishingobscurity.blogspot.com/2007/04/
guess-who-name-them-and-rate-them.html

The Tin Drummer said...

Heh heh. Nice one JH. check out my comment.