In article <uh2n58$2b3up$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:04 am:
>> In article <uh046d$1lpgs$5@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 12:16 am:
>>>> In article <xn0o8b634xi7kim006@reader.xsnews.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>> Blueshirt wrote on 20/10/23 8:50 am:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agamemnon has access to the same internet that I have and I'm
>>>>>>> sure there was talk of a three/four series and out pact between
>>>>>>> Jodie Whittaker and Chris Chibnall... I just couldn't find the
>>>>>>> link when I wanted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah! I remember someone suggesting three seasons and out!!
>>>>>> Three seasons seems to be the going rate for new-Who Doctors ....
>>>>>> exempt Chris, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, I think three or four seasons is most that any Doctor
>>>>> should be around. A new Doctor every few years keeps it fresh and
>>>>> enables a reset button.
>>>>
>>>> RTD 4 serries from what I see!
>>>>
>>> Ah!! And when did RTD play The Doctor, %??
>>
>> He is the showrunner Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!
>
>SO WHAT, %? The discussion in this thread is about people
>*playing* 'Doctor Who' %, *NOT* showrunners, %!!

Showrunners are influential Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2nb1$2b52k$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:05 am:
>> In article <uh04an$1lpgs$6@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 12:11 am:
>>>> In article <ugtiv0$10hmt$2@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>> Blueshirt wrote on 20/10/23 8:50 am:
>>>>>> Idlehands wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-10-19 7:37 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you wonder why the show was cancelled and Chibnall
>>>>>>>>> and Whittaker were sacked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please cite a source that backs up your claim that
>>>>>>>> Chibnall and Whittaker were sacked.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could certainly believe Chris Chibnall was quietly
>>>>>>>> pushed, but IIRC Jodie always talked of leaving the role
>>>>>>>> after a certain period of time... and five years is long
>>>>>>>> enough for one Doctor. (IMHO of course.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Using logic and facts with Aggy just isn't fair since they
>>>>>>> don't exist in whatever universe he resides in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agamemnon has access to the same internet that I have and I'm
>>>>>> sure there was talk of a three/four series and out pact
>>>>>> between Jodie Whittaker and Chris Chibnall... I just couldn't
>>>>>> find the link when I wanted to.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah! I remember someone suggesting three seasons and out!!
>>>>> Three seasons seems to be the going rate for new-Who Doctors
>>>>> .... exempt Chris, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Chris was a showrunner for the Timeless Child and not Doctor
>>>> Who!
>>>
>>> When did Chris Chibnall play 'The Doctor', %??
>>
>> I say showrunner, Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!
>
>I've got no idea what YOU, %, say ..... cause, fortunately
>I'm a loooonnnngg way away from YOU, %!!

Even infamous ones Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy?

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2njv$2b52k$2@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The True Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 5:04 am:
>> On 21/10/2023 11:59, Blueshirt wrote:
>>> Daniel65 wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>>>> Umm! If you don't watch it, how do you know what it contains,
>>>> Aggy??
>>>
>>> Because people who say they don't watch something always end up
>>> watching it anyway... a bit like porn. Nobody admits to watching it
>>> but we all know how the 'story' goes! :-)
>>
>> Woke perverts such as the writers of Gen V are trying to inflict
>> child pornography on children if you watch the latest episode (6) on
>> Amazon Prime where two of the college students (probably underage in
>> some US states, since they're not supposed to be post-grads, but I
>> understand that the actors were probably of legal age) have
>> unprotected sex. I don't want this amateur porn inflicted on me. Let
>> the trauma inflicted on me stand as a warning to others so they don't
>> have to watch it. If these woke perverts want to make port let them
>> put on on Pornhub not Amazon. Why would someone write a scene showing
>> two young students screwing each other unless their mind has rotted?
>>
>"make port let them put on on Pornhub"!! Does Port sell well on Pornhub??

UGH!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2o7h$2ba3s$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:43 pm:
>> In article <uh1ftg$1vf2f$3@dont-email.me>,
>
><Snip>
>
>>> Everyone should read Animal Farm as it shows workery for what it
>>> is.
>>
>> And 1984!
>>
>> I am a George ORwell Fan!
>
>So can we blame Orwell for YOUR wacky-ness, %??

I dare you Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2ori$2bfov$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:47 pm:
>> In article <RbZYM.370650$qkdf.234045@fx07.ams4>, Hornplayer9599
>> <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 13:45, Blueshirt wrote:
>
><Snip>
>
>>>> How can you respect somebody's opinion here about a TV show if
>>>> it's based on what they've seen on a YouTube channel?
>>>
>>> I'm not saying I do, as I watch a lot of TV when I'm home (my
>>> friends may say I watch too much, lol). There's a lot of material
>>> out there that has potential, but also has a large "hole" that puts
>>> the show in a difficult position to reach that potential (I give
>>> you ST: Strange New Worlds and Ahsoka as exhibits 1 & 2...both of
>>> which I have watched the entire series to date). And if several
>>> people on YouTube are seeing the same, or similar things as I am,
>>> then just maybe I'm on the right track about the show in
>>> question...although I freely admit that I have been known to be
>>> wrong in the past from time to time.
>>>
>>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>>> watching. The show has to hit all three of those before I turn it
>>> off. That's what I did with the JW era; I got through the first
>>> season and a half of her tenure and I couldn't watch anymore. The
>>> writing stunk on ice, the acting on the whole was dreadful and not
>>> helped by the bad writing, and while I don't think Jodie is a bad
>>> actor, I don't think she was a "good fit" for the role, and if they
>>> insisted in having a woman play The Doctor they could have found
>>> another woman better suited for the role.
>>>
>>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then
>>> the producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW
>>> as The Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season
>>> the show had settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other
>>> 6M? They can't all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show
>>> hold onto them?).
>>
>> I will stick with traditional and legit services!
>
>YOU, who gets their BBC via IPTV, %!! Hardly 'traditional' and
>hardly 'legit'!!

Check out IPTV services yourself Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2p7u$2bikv$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:07 am:
>> In article <uh06gk$1med4$2@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 12:14 am:
>>>> In article <ugtk8b$10uo3$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>> The True Doctor wrote on 20/10/23 1:50 pm:
>>>>>> On 20/10/2023 03:45, The Doctor wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ugsecs$kf01$3@dont-email.me>, The True
>>>>>>> Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/10/2023 22:31, Blueshirt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone wants Chibnall to sink to the bottom of the
>>>>>>> Mersey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did the name Mersey come from a combination of the French and
>>>>>> English words for sea?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is it a mis-heard/mis-spelt 'Merci', as in thankful for
>>>>> actually making land??
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of Merseyside, Dannyobyo?
>>>
>>> "Dannyobyo"??
>>>
>>> Why, %?? Might that be important, %??
>>
>> Liverpool is on hte irver Mersey Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!
>
>"hte"?? "irver"?? Is YOUR Spell-checker getting sicker and sicker, %??
>
>So what, %??

Never heard of the river Mersey Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy?

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

In article <uh2tee$2cbdr$1@dont-email.me>,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:09 am:
>> In article <uh089u$1mokp$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> The Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 12:12 am:
>>>> In article <xn0o8b5ntxhldiq001@reader.xsnews.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>
>>>>> I just hope RTD makes Doctor Who episodes that are entertaining...
>>>>> I'm not interested in him wasting time undoing the last five years
>>>>> to keep a few hard-core fans happy. He has an audience eagerly
>>>>> awaiting David Tennant's return, take the show forward and keep
>>>>> that audience.
>>>>
>>>> Froward means retconning the Timeless Child!
>>>>
>>> Well, as I've never heard/read of "Froward" before, %, thank YOU,
>>> %, for explaining what it means, %!!
>>
>> TRolling as always Idlehnads-mouth Dannyboy!
>Who are YOU, %, referring to, %, '%' or 'Dannyboy', %??

Make a guess Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!

>--
>Daniel

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
> watching.

I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
switch off!

> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).

They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
being any good, Graham.

In article <xn0o8e2geyxck3000@reader.xsnews.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>
>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>> watching.
>
>I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
>watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
>switch off!
>

That describes the Chibnall/Whittaker ERa!

>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>
>They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
>Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
>the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
>problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
>that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
>disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
>less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
>being any good, Graham.

What about Joanna Lumley as the Doctor?!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Those who want mob rule are opposed to civilisation. -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 11:09 pm:
> In article <uh2n58$2b3up$1@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> The Doctor wrote on 22/10/23 12:04 am:
>>> In article <uh046d$1lpgs$5@dont-email.me>, Daniel65
>>> <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>> The Doctor wrote on 21/10/23 12:16 am:
>>>>> In article <xn0o8b634xi7kim006@reader.xsnews.nl>, Blueshirt
>>>>> <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel65 wrote:
>>>>>>> Blueshirt wrote on 20/10/23 8:50 am:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agamemnon has access to the same internet that I have
>>>>>>>> and I'm sure there was talk of a three/four series and
>>>>>>>> out pact between Jodie Whittaker and Chris Chibnall...
>>>>>>>> I just couldn't find the link when I wanted to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah! I remember someone suggesting three seasons and
>>>>>>> out!! Three seasons seems to be the going rate for
>>>>>>> new-Who Doctors .... exempt Chris, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, I think three or four seasons is most that any
>>>>>> Doctor should be around. A new Doctor every few years keeps
>>>>>> it fresh and enables a reset button.
>>>>>
>>>>> RTD 4 serries from what I see!
>>>>>
>>>> Ah!! And when did RTD play The Doctor, asswipe??
>>>
>>> He is the showrunner Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!
>>
>> SO WHAT, asswipe? The discussion in this thread is about people
>> *playing* 'Doctor Who' asswipe, *NOT* showrunners, asswipe!!
>
> Showrunners are influential Idlehands-mouth Dannyboy!

SO WHAT, asswipe? The discussion in this thread is about people
*playing* 'Doctor Who' asswipe, *NOT* showrunners, asswipe!!
--
Daniel

Blueshirt wrote on 22/10/23 11:31 pm:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>
>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>> watching.
>
> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather
> than switch off!
>
>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then
>> the producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW
>> as The Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season
>> the show had settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other
>> 6M? They can't all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show
>> hold onto them?).
>
> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor
> and the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I
> had no problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it
> was clear that the storylines were poor and the episodes were
> generally more disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could
> also have done with less baggage as I thought three was too many
> companions with only one being any good, Graham.
>
If 'they' had gone with just the one companion, I would have gone with
Yaz .... or, maybe, at a stretch, Dan.

Graham was too old all by himself, he was only useful if he had Ryan to
look after.
--
Daniel

Daniel65 wrote:

> Blueshirt wrote on 22/10/23 11:31 pm:

> > The 13th Doctor could also have done with less baggage as I
> > thought three was too many companions with only one being
> > any good, Graham.
>
> If 'they' had gone with just the one companion, I would have gone with
> Yaz .... or, maybe, at a stretch, Dan.
>
> Graham was too old all by himself, he was only useful if he had Ryan to
> look after.

I didn't like Yasmin or Ryan... I thought an older companion with a
younger Doctor was a good twist to the Doctor-companion dynamic. Something
fresh. The three companions in [generally] 50 minute stories just meant at
least one was side-lined each episode with very little to do.

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>
>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>> watching.
>
> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
> switch off!
>
>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>
> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
> being any good, Graham.
>

The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
look! A woman).

Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)

Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).

Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
villainous monster for the whole season.

--
Jodie Whittaker played the Thirteenth Doctor in Doctor Who.

361 19 19. On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 7:43:47 AM UTC-7, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> > Hornplayer9599 wrote:
> >>
> >> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
> >> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
> >> watching.
> >
> > I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
> > watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
> > switch off!
> >
> >> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
> >> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
> >> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
> >> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
> >> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
> >
> > They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
> > Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
> > the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
> > problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
> > that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
> > disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
> > less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
> > being any good, Graham.
> >
> The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
> series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
> new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
> look! A woman).
>
> Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
> story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)
>
> Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
> viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
> still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).
>
> Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
> in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
> audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
> similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
> despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
> villainous monster for the whole season.

The monsters were all indecent?

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:32:59 AM UTC-7, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <xn0o8e2g...@reader.xsnews.nl>,
> Blueshirt <blue...@indigo.news> wrote:
> >Hornplayer9599 wrote:
> >>
> >> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
> >> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
> >> watching.
> >
> >I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
> >watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
> >switch off!
> >
> That describes the Chibnall/Whittaker ERa!
> >> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
> >> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
> >> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
> >> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
> >> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
> >
> >They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
> >Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
> >the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
> >problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
> >that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
> >disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
> >less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
> >being any good, Graham.
> What about Joanna Lumley as the Doctor?!

Is she still available?

On 10/22/2023 09:42, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>>
>>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>>> watching.
>>
>> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
>> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
>> switch off!
>>
>>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>>
>> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
>> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
>> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
>> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
>> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
>> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
>> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
>> being any good, Graham.
>>
>
> The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
> series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
> new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
> look! A woman).
>
> Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
> story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)
>
> Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
> viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
> still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).
>
> Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
> in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
> audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
> similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
> despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
> villainous monster for the whole season.
>

Interesting...but consider this: if the show was such a success for the
BBC even with the bad writing & directing, why were they so eager to
unload it to Bad Wolf? Yes, I know, production costs more than likely
played a factor...but...if the show was doing so well, the revenue
should have offset the expense. Then again the show was bringing in
more money than it spent in the mid-80s, and look what Lew Grade decided
to do.

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>
>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>> watching.
>
> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
> switch off!
>
>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>
> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
> being any good, Graham.
>

The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
look! A woman).

Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)

Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).

Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
villainous monster for the whole season.

--
Jodie Whittaker played the Thirteenth Doctor in Doctor Who.

Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 09:42, The Last Doctor wrote:
>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>>>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>>>> watching.
>>>
>>> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
>>> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
>>> switch off!
>>>
>>>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>>>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>>>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>>>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>>>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>>>
>>> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
>>> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
>>> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
>>> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
>>> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
>>> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
>>> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
>>> being any good, Graham.
>>>
>>
>> The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
>> series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
>> new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
>> look! A woman).
>>
>> Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
>> story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)
>>
>> Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
>> viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
>> still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).
>>
>> Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
>> in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
>> audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
>> similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
>> despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
>> villainous monster for the whole season.
>>
>
> Interesting...but consider this: if the show was such a success for the
> BBC even with the bad writing & directing, why were they so eager to
> unload it to Bad Wolf?

I’ve been an independent freelance resource for twenty years - since 2009,
entirely for one client (barring a 6 month stint with one of their
competitors in 2016). Why do they hire in externally on such a long term
basis? I’m far from the only one. It would cost them much less over time to
hire me, given that they are paying two tiers of agency fees and 20% VAT on
top of my day rate. But they don’t.

It all comes down to accountancy - the BBC own the IP and can commission
3rd party content for more cost than an in house production - for tax
reasons, for the ability to flex without having to let go of staff, a
myriad other factors that make the bottom line better for them when they
buy in. Loads of BBC content is external - they even commission some shows
from ITV, how does that work?

And also, if the deal with Disney was in the offing, passing production and
funding responsibility to Bad Wolf gave the BBC a fig leaf for when BBC
America, Canada’s Space and Australia’s ABC came moaning that their
distribution agreements had come to an end - “wasn’t us guv, it is those
money grubbing independents at Bad Wolf, they’re just going where the cash
is …”

> Yes, I know, production costs more than likely
> played a factor...but...if the show was doing so well, the revenue
> should have offset the expense. Then again the show was bringing in
> more money than it spent in the mid-80s, and look what Lew Grade decided
> to do.

But the product then was so risible and awful, and just on a perpetual
downward trend. Bad Wolf clearly came up with the idea of a soft reset and
got RTD on board to inject some nostalgia as well in time for the 60th …
win win win for the BBC.

--
Jodie Whittaker played the Thirteenth Doctor in Doctor Who.

On 22/10/2023 08:52, Squealer wrote:
>
> άμυαλος <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> drooled:
>
> [SNIP all of Aggie’s lies, idiocy, goalpost shifting, failures to read
> English or acknowledge his myriad errors, imaginary plotlines,
> evidence-free assertions and whining, so that I can address his material
> points for discussion].

So claims Squealer. But as we all know Squealer is full of lies and deceit.

He can not refute a single thing I have said so he attacks and insults
the intelligence of his interlocutor and what he has seen, read, and
remembers, so that Squealer can twist the meaning of words and past
events to rewrite history in his own image and follow his own political
propaganda and that of the pigs that have turned themselves into farmer
Jones and treat everyone as if they were stupid while the pigs
hypocritically enrich and engorge themselves and break their own laws
which is what wokery is all about.

As soon as you read Animal Farm you will see that Mike M is the very
embodiment and personification of Squealer.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

Hornplayer9599 wrote:

> and look what Lew Grade decided to do.

Minor correction: It was Michael Grade (Lew's nephew) who was the BBC1
Controller at the time of the 1985 hiatus, and who moved Doctor Who from
it's traditional Saturday evening slot on BBC1 to midweek. Jonathan
Powell who was the BBC1 Controller when the show was cancelled in 1989.

On 22/10/2023 02:41, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <uh1c0f$1us3a$2@dont-email.me>,
> The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2023 20:14, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> The True Doctor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jo Martin has one and it was implied that is was the same TARDIS, which
>>>>> is totally ridiculous as we saw the real Doctor stealing the TARDIS in
>>>>> The Name of the Doctor. What a coincidence! Chibnall has totally
>>>>> destroyed Matt Smith's entire story arc.
>>>>
>>>> Why the "Fugitive" Doctor's TARDIS was a blue British Police box was
>>>> something that was never explained. It was strange if she was
>>>> pre-Hartnell, as a Gallifreyan TARDIS isn't a blue Police box by default.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously the out of universe reason is simply to drop a big final clue
>>> stick for viewers who weren’t paying attention.
>>>
>>> In universe there are a couple of easy possibilities to explain it away,
>>> both of which depend on the long-established telepathic bond between a Time
>>> Lord and their personal TARDIS, and even more so for the Doctor and their
>>> TARDIS (as per “The Doctor’s Wife”).
>>>
>>
>> So Mike has decided to confound everyone with fan-fiction in defence of
>> Chibnall in the same manner that Squealer employs to defend Napoleon in
>> Animal Farm. I always thought I'd seen this style of argument somewhere
>> before.
>>
>>> 1) Bootstrap paradox version: the Fugitive Doctor’s TARDIS did NOT have the
>>> Police Box exterior when buried.
>>>
>>> Rather, when the TARDIS connected subconsciously with 13 while she was
>>> uncovering it, it assumed that shape because it saw the shape in her mind
>>> and wanted to let her know that it was HER TARDIS. Then it took that shape
>>> back into the past, and kept assuming that shape whether appropriate or
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>> What a load of nonsense. I'm not a dumb sheep or carthorse Squealer.
>>
>> If the TARDIS changed shaped buried in a hold in the ground the the
>> earth on top of it would have either caved into the void or being pushed
>> out by its expansion.
>>
>>> 2) Repeated meme variation: the TARDIS developed its obsession with Police
>>> Box form early in the pre-Hartnell Doctor’s career.
>>>
>>
>> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
>>
>> This is not Animal Farm squealer.
>>
>>> In either scenario, when the Doctor was memory wiped the TARDIS still kept
>>> trying to assume that form for other Time Lords. This made it “broken”
>>> which is why it was in the workshop waiting to be stolen by the Hartnell
>>> Doctor (when prompted by Clara to make sure he stole what was already his
>>> own TARDIS), and it promptly reassumed its already beloved form.
>>>
>>
>> So the TARDIS is a willing accomplice to the Timeless Child monster's
>> crime against all forms of life, as well, and wants to brainwash other
>> Time Lords into continuing to commit them, as it does with Hartnell and
>> Troughton by taking them to places and times seemingly at random.
>>
>>> Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the show to
>>> support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward continuity issues.
>>>
>>
>> Napoleon is Always Right and I Shall Try to Work Harder. Right Squealer?
>>
>
> MM is really going down the drain!
>

We shall call him Squealer from now on.

>> --
>> The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
>>
>> "To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
>> stands for." -William Shatner
>>
>
>

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

The True Doctor wrote:

> On 22/10/2023 02:41, The Doctor wrote:
> > In article <uh1c0f$1us3a$2@dont-email.me>,
> >The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > > On 21/10/2023 20:14, The Last Doctor wrote:
> > >
> > > > Before anyone asks, this is purely fanwank. I have no basis in the
> > > > show to support either possibility, I just don’t like awkward
> > > > continuity issues.
> > >
> > > Napoleon is Always Right and I Shall Try to Work Harder. Right
> > > Squealer?
> >
> > MM is really going down the drain!
>
> We shall call him Squealer from now on.
You and Mike have two different points of view, this groups needs more
Doctor Who discussion. Don't let Dave drag you to the dark side of petty
childishness!!!

What's the point of a newsgroups where we all slap each other on the back
and agree with each other? Mike said his explanations were "purely
fanwank" which doesn't mean that it's a set in stone fact. I can't see why
there's a problem. It's not like he's the first person to post on RADW
with some odd ideas is it?

On 10/22/2023 14:46, Blueshirt wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>
>> and look what Lew Grade decided to do.
>
> Minor correction: It was Michael Grade (Lew's nephew) who was the BBC1
> Controller at the time of the 1985 hiatus, and who moved Doctor Who from
> it's traditional Saturday evening slot on BBC1 to midweek. Jonathan
> Powell who was the BBC1 Controller when the show was cancelled in 1989.
>

Yep...just realized that. That's what a minor stroke can do to ya.

--

Intelligence is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
--Carl Sagan

On 22/10/2023 15:42, The Last Doctor wrote:
> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>>
>>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>>> watching.
>>
>> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
>> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
>> switch off!
>>
>>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>>
>> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
>> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
>> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
>> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
>> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
>> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
>> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
>> being any good, Graham.
>>
>
> The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
> series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,

So claims Squealer. But as we all know Squealers purpose is to dissemble
and deceive in order to impose the party line and make out everyone who
doesn't follow it is stupid.

> new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
> look! A woman).
>
> Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
> story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)
>
> Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
> viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
> still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).
>
> Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement

Those numbers are completely selective and exclude all the evidence that
does not agree with the woke narrative. Like in Animal Farm Squealer is
using fiddled statistics to make out that the animals are no worse of
than the were under farmer Jones, when in fact they are on the verge of
starvation and more sick than ever.

If Squealer wants to start with Eccleston then lets also compare with
Tennant like for like. As can be seen Tennant did better than Eccleston
and instead of the ratings dropping from season to season to disasterous
levels Tennant's ratings increased. Not until we get to Capalidi's
second season do we see the ratings collapse in half. But Whittaker's
ratings have already collapsed in half by the start of her second season
and then by the last they have dropped to all time lows of 2.2 million,
1/4 of their original numbers.

Ask yourself what caused Capaldi and Whittaker's ratings to collapse?
WOKERY! Get Woke, Go Broke! Instead of being there to entertain the
audience they show was used to lecture and brainwash them and call them
all sexists, racists, and bigots. So it's no surprise that 3/4 of the
audience left.

> in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
> audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
> similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
> despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
> villainous monster for the whole season.
>

You can't blame 3/4 of the audience leaving the show in just 3 yeas on
changing viewing habits Squealer.

The show went woke and set about attacking its own audience, so 3/4 of
it left.

It told male viewers that they were not good enough and alienated and
disenfranchised them in order to sell the show to a completely different
audience of homosexuals and uneducated and unaspirational women between
the ages of 35 and 44 of the low social-standing C2, D, and E
demographic groups, all of whom were never interested in Science Fiction
to begin with and never will be, because they are the complete opposite
of the highly educated and aspiration middle-class, primarily
heterosexual male audience which Science Fiction and Fantasy were always
written for and appealed to. Call that diversity and inclusion? I call
it discrimination and exclusion.

It's blatantly obvious that if you target a male orientated show and
genre at women you're not going to get many viewers for it. You're not
going to get many viewers either if you try and target it at homosexuals
who only make up 3% of the population according to the last census.
Nothing to do with changing viewing habits, but I accept that given the
availability of far better programming online which doesn't attack the
viewer because they are male or heterosexual, they're obviously going to
be more likely to watch that instead.

The root of the problem is talentless woke morons being allowed to take
over the entertainment industry and, with merit being thrown out of the
window, recruiting more talentless woke morons who are only interested
about making stuff for and about themselves instead of the majority of
viewers.

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner

On 22/10/2023 19:29, Squealer wrote:
> Hornplayer9599 <Hornplayer9599@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2023 09:42, The Last Doctor wrote:
>>> Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
>>>> Hornplayer9599 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'm watching something, and it falls into the formula of: Bad
>>>>> writing + Miscast actors + Bad acting = Bad Show...then I stop
>>>>> watching.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. As that is common sense. Unfortunately some people continue
>>>> watching a show they don't like and continue moaning about it rather than
>>>> switch off!
>>>>
>>>>> Like I said above, if enough people aren't liking the product, then the
>>>>> producers of said product have a problem (first season with JW as The
>>>>> Doctor started with 10M viewers, by the end of the season the show had
>>>>> settled into the 4M range. What happened to the other 6M? They can't
>>>>> all have been misogynists, why couldn't the show hold onto them?).
>>>>
>>>> They weren't all misogynists or they wouldn't have watched the 13th
>>>> Doctor in the first place. It's always exciting to have a new Doctor and
>>>> the female Doctor hype would have drawn some new viewers in. I had no
>>>> problem with a female Doctor but as the season progressed it was clear
>>>> that the storylines were poor and the episodes were generally more
>>>> disappointing than exciting. The 13th Doctor could also have done with
>>>> less baggage as I thought three was too many companions with only one
>>>> being any good, Graham.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The best comparison is probably to compare the audience trajectory of
>>> series 11 with that of Christopher Eccleston’s series 1 - all new approach,
>>> new showrunner, new Doctor, gimmick (back from a long long hiatus vs. Oh
>>> look! A woman).
>>>
>>> Episode 1.01 - audience 10.85m viewers, episodes 1.12-1.13 (one finale
>>> story, two episodes) average 6.86m viewers. (6.81 and 6.91)
>>>
>>> Episode 11.01 - audience 10.96m viewers, episode 11.10 (finale) 6.65m
>>> viewers (not the 4m range claimed - even 2 seasons later the range was
>>> still 5.8 - 4.6m or so).
>>>
>>> Those numbers look fairly comparable to me, and given the 13 year movement
>>> in overall TV viewing figures (an average 35% drop or so in traditional TV
>>> audiences across the board) the fact that Doctor Who could still achieve
>>> similar numbers shows that the show remained a huge success for the BBC
>>> despite the weak writing, flat directing and absence of a single decent
>>> villainous monster for the whole season.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting...but consider this: if the show was such a success for the
>> BBC even with the bad writing & directing, why were they so eager to
>> unload it to Bad Wolf?
>
> I’ve been an independent freelance resource for twenty years - since 2009,
> entirely for one client (barring a 6 month stint with one of their
> competitors in 2016). Why do they hire in externally on such a long term
> basis? I’m far from the only one. It would cost them much less over time to
> hire me, given that they are paying two tiers of agency fees and 20% VAT on
> top of my day rate. But they don’t.

They don't pay any VAT at all since they're a business and can claim it
all back. In fact no VAT money even has to leave their bank as they can
account for the difference themselves and pay nothing.

>
> It all comes down to accountancy - the BBC own the IP and can commission
> 3rd party content for more cost than an in house production - for tax
> reasons, for the ability to flex without having to let go of staff, a
> myriad other factors that make the bottom line better for them when they
> buy in. Loads of BBC content is external - they even commission some shows
> from ITV, how does that work?

The BBC are required by law to commission 3rd parties to make content
for them instead of making it themselves at a far cheaper cost due to
them having a virtual monopoly on terrestrial television along with the
ITV.

>
> And also, if the deal with Disney was in the offing, passing production and
> funding responsibility to Bad Wolf gave the BBC a fig leaf for when BBC
> America, Canada’s Space and Australia’s ABC came moaning that their
> distribution agreements had come to an end - “wasn’t us guv, it is those
> money grubbing independents at Bad Wolf, they’re just going where the cash
> is …”

More of Squealer's dissembling of the BBC.

In principle the BBC could have made more money by selling Doctor Who
directly to Australian, Canadian, and US broadcasters individually and
selling the rights for smaller countries to a streaming service, but
NOBODY else was willing to buy it after the disasters of Capaldi's last
two series and all of Whittaker's after the show went woke. Doctor Who
reached it's peak world wide under Matt Smith. It was then dropped by
Netflix, then Amazon, then HBO Max, after no independent broadcasters,
not even BBC America wanted it, and then only Disney+ was left which got
it in a cut price deal about 1/4 of what Netflix had originally paid for it.

Get Woke, Go Broke is the moral of this story. If you attack and and
insult your viewers and call them sexists, racists, homophobes, and
bigots when you are the sexist, racist, homophobe, and bigot, then don't
expect them to come back or give you a single penny.

>
>> Yes, I know, production costs more than likely
>> played a factor...but...if the show was doing so well, the revenue
>> should have offset the expense. Then again the show was bringing in
>> more money than it spent in the mid-80s, and look what Lew Grade decided
>> to do.
>
> But the product then was so risible and awful, and just on a perpetual
> downward trend. Bad Wolf clearly came up with the idea of a soft reset and
> got RTD on board to inject some nostalgia as well in time for the 60th …
> win win win for the BBC.
>

So we're going to see the Timeless Child monster retconed then? Because
if it isn't Doctor Who stays dead and buried.

Don't expect a bunch of extreme feminists and homosexual activists to
save the show which they destroyed with their bigotry and hate.

Bad Wolf didn't come up with anything. No one wanted to run Doctor Who
after Chibnall totally destroyed it with his woke activism and RTD
stepped in at the last moment with a rescue plan which involved turning
the Doctor gay.

Do you seriously think that making the show appeal to 1.5% of the
population, ie. gay men, and using it to sexually groom children is
going to save Doctor Who Squealer?

--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it
stands for." -William Shatner