# Doctor Who: The Doctors Revisited



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Did anybody else watch this BBC America special on the first Doctor, William Hartnell? From what I watched, it was pretty interesting but I didn't know it was three hours long when I started. I fell asleep on it twice last night. I'll see if I can get through the rest of it today now that I know how long it is.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I did not watch it all (went to bed) but it looks like the format will be talking, features, etc., ending with a full story from that particular Doctor. The first one was "The Atzecs" from Hartnell's era. Don't know if anything happened after they showed that.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Nothing happened after they showed the episode.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Nothing happened after they showed the episode.


Thanks.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I wish these old episodes were still being shown. Sure, most of them are terribly outdated but I still want to see them.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Star Trek is outdated too, but we like to watch it. The BBC seems to misunderstand that, and even they show Star Trek. 

Greg


----------



## Bettamojo5 (Apr 12, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I wish these old episodes were still being shown. Sure, most of them are terribly outdated but I still want to see them.


I've watched the first season (1963/64) online. There are several missing episodes that the BBC junked, but the audio tracks and pictures from them are available. I'm moving on to the second season now. (1964/65)


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I wish these old episodes were still being shown. Sure, most of them are terribly outdated but I still want to see them.


I don't think it's their outdatedness; I think BBC wants you to buy the DVDs.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I started to watch it, and due to lack of sleep over the weekend decided partway through the Aztec episode to turn it off and continue it later. 

From what I saw it seemed interesting and I need to find the old episodes to watch. Are they on Netflix?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Yes, they have classic doctor who episodes on Netflix. Probably nowhere near complete though.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Craigbob said:


> I started to watch it, and due to lack of sleep over the weekend decided partway through the Aztec episode to turn it off and continue it later.
> 
> From what I saw it seemed interesting and I need to find the old episodes to watch. Are they on Netflix?


Netflix is very few and far between for streaming. More available via DVD from them, though.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Did anybody else watch this BBC America special on the first Doctor, William Hartnell? From what I watched, it was pretty interesting but *I didn't know it was three hours long when I started.* I fell asleep on it twice last night. I'll see if I can get through the rest of it today now that I know how long it is.


Well, after I removed the commercials, it was almost exactly two hours long.


----------



## Ozzie72 (Aug 9, 2008)

It seemed to be pretty standard stuff, no real surprises, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the interview clips with William Russell. I was also pleasantly surprised that we got the entire story of "The Aztecs". I wasn't aware before the broadcast that the format would be an hour of documentary and then a full story. I can't wait to see which stories are screened for the other Doctors.

And of course it was no surprise to see John Barrowman's mug. I really like the guy, but has he ever met a camera or TV gig that he hasn't liked?


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

I liked the first part of the show and while I do like to watch some classic episodes I was disappointed that they chose a "historical" episode rather then one with a more Sci Fi flavor. I have probably seen every single episode EXCEPT for the ones from the first Doctor. The reason being is that most (not ALL) are more of the historic type which I am not a big fan of!

Gerry


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Gerryex said:


> I liked the first part of the show and while I do like to watch some classic episodes I was disappointed that they chose a "historical" episode rather then one with a more Sci Fi flavor. I have probably seen every single episode EXCEPT for the ones from the first Doctor. The reason being is that most (not ALL) are more of the historic type which I am not a big fan of!
> 
> Gerry


They are limited in what they can show from Hartnell as many of the series are incomplete but they picked this one because of some key things in it like not changing history. I haven't watched it all and have seen parts of it before but I like it.

Add: and there is little doubt of what they will pick for Doctor #8.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've never liked Patrick Troughton in any of the handful of his episodes I've seen. It's like Moe from the Three Stooges playing the Doctor. Maybe the next special will get me to appreciate him more. Jon Pertwee is the first Doctor in the lineage that I like. Tom BAker is my favorite with Pertwee my second favorite out of the classic Doctors. I could never get into Hartnell or Troughton.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> I've never liked Patrick Troughton in any of the handful of his episodes I've seen.


For me, Troughton nudges past TBaker to be my favorite classic doctor, followed by Pertwee and then Hartnell. (Haven't seen enough of 5-7 to fairly judge. Will rectify that this summer.)

Some of that may be because I think Jamie and adorable Zoe were my favorite companion(s) up to where I am in my current viewing chronology (TBaker & Leela).


----------



## sonnik (Jul 7, 2000)

Missed this. Are they doing 1 through 7, or all the way through 11?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sonnik said:


> Missed this. Are they doing 1 through 7, or all the way through 11?


I'm still waiting for 2 to show up in the Guide Data.

If they don't hurry, they're not going to have time to do all or most of them before the new season starts! (Which is about 8 weeks from now.)


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

They're actually doing it to lead up to the 50th anniversary in November. So there will be one per month.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lambertman said:


> They're actually doing it to lead up to the 50th anniversary in November. So there will be one per month.


Ah, that makes sense!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

lambertman said:


> For me, Troughton nudges past TBaker to be my favorite classic doctor, followed by Pertwee and then Hartnell. (Haven't seen enough of 5-7 to fairly judge. Will rectify that this summer.)
> 
> Some of that may be because I think Jamie and adorable Zoe were my favorite companion(s) up to where I am in my current viewing chronology (TBaker & Leela).


I recently watched a Troughton episode. I think it was called The Dominators. It was the first time I remember seeing Zoe. Let me just say - baby got back. I spent half the episode hoping she'd walk away from the camera.

I guess my problem with Hartnell and Troughton is that their Doctors seem more addle brained than eccentric. Pertwee was the first Doctor who had leading man, star qualities.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

I hope BBC America re-airs it. Someone it didn't get recorded.

I checked On Demand last night and there the Doctor Who HD category is no longer there.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

> Doctor Who: The Doctors Revisited - The First Doctor can be seen today at 4pm/3c on BBC America and is followed by a screening of William Hartnell story The Aztecs. There is a repeat screening of the documentary and The Aztecs from 3am/2c on Thursday morning.


http://tennantnews.blogspot.com/2013/02/doctor-who-doctors-revisited-repeated.html


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Oy but was the acting bad. I guess that was par for the course back then, but it was painful to watch. I mean, it's not like the series was ever an example of great acting but that was just really awful.


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

wkearney99 said:


> Oy but was the acting bad. I guess that was par for the course back then, but it was painful to watch. I mean, it's not like the series was ever an example of great acting but that was just really awful.


Not just the acting, but the production values as well, again it wasn't like the show was ever the home of cutting edge effects, but how many times did they redress that one set?

On interesting thing was that the show's original mission was to be "educational" -- when they when they went into the future they'd teach science and when they went into the past they would teach history, hence Barbara's lessons on Aztec culture.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Sheesh, Doctor Who was always cardboard sets. (BTW, no I have not seen this one.)


----------



## SnakeVargas (Feb 8, 2013)

I enjoyed the Hartnell and Troughton episodes as reruns on PBS when I was a teen back in the early nineties. The Hartnell episodes did have an educational aspect that felt forced especially in the historical ones. It's fun seeing how the doctor evolved over time. My favorite era had to be the Peter Davison episodes.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

tiassa said:


> Not just the acting, but the production values as well, again it wasn't like the show was ever the home of cutting edge effects, but how many times did they redress that one set?


Don't be too hard on the production values. In many ways, the first two Doctors (although moreso for Hartnell) were doing a live stage show, with as much done in order (with sound being pumped into the stage) as possible.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Second Doctor story "Tomb of the Cybermen" coming up on Feb 24:

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/02/dwn120213180012the-second-doctor-revisited-on-bbc.html


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

lambertman said:


> Second Doctor story "Tomb of the Cybermen" coming up on Feb 24:
> 
> http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/02/dwn120213180012the-second-doctor-revisited-on-bbc.html


Damn. One of the few that are available free on amazon prime.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I watched the second special and was surprised to see a black actor on mid 60s British tv. Of course, he only had about two lines and one of them was something like "Grrrrrr!!!" There may have been others but Tomb Of The Cybermen was the only instance of seeing a black character on classic Doctor Who that I can remember.

This was my first episode with Victoria. She was cute but pretty useless. "Gee, let me stand inside the cyber waffle iron."

The cybermen got better as the series went on. These guys were slow and boring in their rubber suits.

It was kind of funny that the rocket ship pilot had an American accent and was cocky.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

I'm following the various Dr Who threads but I thought this comment would be best here.

I know I'm showing my age but I started watching Dr Who live when it was new to the US in the 70s with Tom Baker as the Dr. I've seen all the previous Dr episodes (except for the William Hartnell ones as many of them were "history lessons" which I didn't care for) when they were rebroadcast. Then I watched all the other Drs live and started again with the re-boot with Eccleston as the Dr. So for all intents and purposes I've seen all the Dr Who episodes.

In my humble opinion the best Dr of them all was Tom Baker. And the best companion was Sara Jane Smith (with a close second by Leela and her sexy outfit!).

Gerry


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Gerryex said:


> I started watching Dr Who live when it was new to the US in the 70s with Tom Baker as the Dr.
> ...
> 
> In my humble opinion the best Dr of them all was Tom Baker.


That's the typical stereotype of Doctor Who fans. "Your first Doctor is the best Doctor"

--Carlos "It's 'the Doctor', not 'Dr." V.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

If you have access to Comcast OnDemand, the first two episodes of the Doctors Revisited is available there.

Last I checked, the first 40 minutes of the first DW and the entire 2nd DW special is available in HD.

In non-HD, the first DW special is in two parts...and is missing some content at the end of it. The second DW special appears to be there fine...although here it is mislabeled.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Gerryex said:


> In my humble opinion the best Dr of them all was Tom Baker. And the best companion was Sara Jane Smith (with a close second by Leela and her sexy outfit!).


*Which* Leela?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> *Which* Leela?


Hmm? There was only one Leela.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

There was the Leela who appeared on TV, and the Leela that appeared in my some people's heads...

By the way, Louise Jameson is hinting that she might be participating in the 50th Anniversary in some way...


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Hmm? There was only one Leela.


He's thinking of Romana, likely.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Leela was in the first Doctor Who episode I ever saw - The Talons of Weng-Chiang. That was the episode with the Peking Homunculus.


----------



## caslu (Jun 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> There was the Leela who appeared on TV, and the Leela that appeared in my some people's heads...
> 
> By the way, Louise Jameson is hinting that she might be participating in the 50th Anniversary in some way...


The Leela in my head still looks like your photo but Louise Jameson... sadly, not so much. Still, would be nice to see how married life has treated the warrior of the Sevateem.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Unbeliever said:


> That's the typical stereotype of Doctor Who fans. "Your first Doctor is the best Doctor"


I guess you're right but there's no denying that Tom Baker was Dr Who for the most number of seasons and therefore had the most number of different companions.

EDIT: I just checked and it seems that the 10th Dr (David Tennant) actually had more companions than Tom Baker. But Baker still holds the record for the number of seasons as the Dr!!

Gerry


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Gerryex said:


> I guess you're right but there's no denying that Tom Baker was Dr Who for the most number of seasons and therefore had the most number of different companions.
> 
> EDIT: I just checked and it seems that the 10th Dr (David Tennant) actually had more companions than Tom Baker. But Baker still holds the record for the number of seasons as the Dr!!
> 
> Gerry


That's mostly cause they consider one offs like Kylie Minogue a companion. That's tough for me. I don't think Kylie ever set foot in the TARDIS.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lambertman said:


> He's thinking of Romana, likely.


ARGGGGH!!!!!

and of course, the only one that matters is Romana II.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

mattack said:


> ARGGGGH!!!!!
> 
> and of course, the only one that matters is Romana II.


Actually, I prefer Romana I.

I've been watching some Jon Pertwee episodes. Jo Grant was hot.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Actually, I prefer Romana I.
> 
> .


Tom Baker didn't.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Tom Baker didn't.


Well, we don't KNOW that.

Maybe he settled.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, we don't KNOW that.
> 
> Maybe he settled.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

I'm almost finished watching the show on the 2nd Dr and am enjoying the classic episode much more than the one from the 1st Dr, which was more of a history lesson than Sci Fi. I have a question which is probably more retorical than answerable and just in case I'll put it in a spoiler.



Spoiler



This episode is about the Cybermen and an expedition to their tomb. The Dr and party join the expedition and the Dr knows that it involves the Cybermen BUT he actually helps them open the hatch leading down to the tomb. Why would he do such a thing and possibly awaken the Cybermen whereas if he didn't help them they would have never gotten to revive the Cybermen!



Gerry


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

The "history lesson" was the original vision and intent for Doctor Who.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Langree said:


> The "history lesson" was the original vision and intent for Doctor Who.


Yes, I know but as I Sci Fi fan I really didn't care for those original episodes and much more prefer those with the later Drs.

Gerry


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I really enjoyed the third special about Jon Pertwee's stint as the Doctor. As I've said before, I never really cared about the first two Doctors. Tom Baker was my first and favorite and Pertwee is my second favorite classic Doctor. He was more of an action hero Doctor than any of the others. 

I don't remember seeing this Terror Of The Autons episode before, so that was an added benefit. My favorite part of this special was the brief segment on Roger Delgado as The Master. His Master was cool, debonair and a Van **** sportin' smooove operator. I've always loved the way he played The Master. The clownish, insane Master from the Tennant era is an abomination as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I was actually quit disappointed that they chose "Spearhead from Space" as the episode. It was his first episode, so there was THAT, but he really hadn't "grown" into the part, and it didn't have Jo, or the Master. 

They didn't mention Elisabeth Sladen, which was odd as she was his companion for season 11 (his last of five seasons).

While I am puzzling about what was included and excluded, I the show just before this one, "The Doctor's Companions," there was not but a mention of Donna Nobel. While I thought she was my least favorite of the companions, all were good, and her exclusion was, well, ood. Even if she was unavailable, they should have talked about her, you know, the Doctor-Donna and all.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> They didn't mention Elisabeth Sladen, which was odd as she was his companion for season 11 (his last of five seasons).
> 
> While I am puzzling about what was included and excluded, I the show just before this one, "The Doctor's Companions," there was not but a mention of Donna Nobel. While I thought she was my least favorite of the companions, all were good, and her exclusion was, well, ood. Even if she was unavailable, they should have talked about her, you know, the Doctor-Donna and all.


I noticed Sarah Jane's absence as well. I assume they're saving her for Tom Baker's special.

Was the Doctor's Companion's special just about the companions of the reboot?


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

cheesesteak said:


> I noticed Sarah Jane's absence as well. I assume they're saving her for Tom Baker's special.


That's my feeling as well, it will also show some of the progression in companion style.



cheesesteak said:


> Was the Doctor's Companion's special just about the companions of the reboot?


Yeah, pretty much


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

I'm finding these Dr. Revisited and the companions somewhat disappointing. I was hoping for more about the companions pre 2005. But they all seem to get the short shrift. I hadn't seen a lot of Dr. Who pre 2005 (pretty limited to the 4th Dr. when I could find them as a kid).

So getting the history is something I've been looking forward to. <SIGH>


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Well the Companions special that ran recently was only about the ones that have been since the reboot. Sarah Jane was on one episode with Tenant so she got a mention (and her own show) bit it was about the companions SINCE Rose. They didn't mention Donna though, which I found odd.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

This is about Doctors Revisited, which has only been about the first three Doctors (so far).

I think the only companion they've really given short shrift to is Sarah Jane, who as mentioned will be covered in the Tom Baker episode. Remember, they only have about 45 minutes of air time (barely a half-hour of real time) to cover every aspect of several years' worth of the show. So _everything's_ going to be pretty superficial, and it's realistic that they spend most of that time on the Doctor himself.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> This is about Doctors Revisited, which has only been about the first three Doctors (so far).
> 
> I think the only companion they've really given short shrift to is Sarah Jane, who as mentioned will be covered in the Tom Baker episode. Remember, they only have about 45 minutes of air time (barely a half-hour of real time) to cover every aspect of several years' worth of the show. So _everything's_ going to be pretty superficial, and it's realistic that they spend most of that time on the Doctor himself.


Yeah, and when they get to the next doctor, Tom Baker, it will be a stretch since he played the Doctor over a seven-year period, from 1974 to 1981. That's a lot of ground to cover in a half hour of screen time. What episode do you think they'll feature for him? There were a lot, and a lot of pretty good ones.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> Yeah, and when they get to the next doctor, Tom Baker, it will be a stretch since he played the Doctor over a seven-year period, from 1974 to 1981. That's a lot of ground to cover in a half hour of screen time. What episode do you think they'll feature for him? There were a lot, and a lot of pretty good ones.


Doctor Who News Page seems to have spilled the beans that it will be


Spoiler



Pyramids of Mars ...because it's on the upcoming DVD.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

lambertman said:


> Doctor Who News Page seems to have spilled the beans that it will be
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


That was a pretty good episode I thought.

I should also have mentioned that he had a lot of companions, at least eight.

I think that Sarah was the only companion to have been a companion to three different Doctors.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> I think that Sarah was the only companion to have been a companion to three different Doctors.


???

You mean to have appeared with three Doctors?


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> Well the Companions special that ran recently was only about the ones that have been since the reboot. Sarah Jane was on one episode with Tenant so she got a mention (and her own show) bit it was about the companions SINCE Rose. They didn't mention Donna though, which I found odd.


I think Sarah Jane was in more than one Doctor Who story with David Tennant. And Tennant was a guest on her tv series too.

The other Tennant story was The Stolen Earth / Journey's End which had a lot of Tardis guests on it.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey's_End_(Doctor_Who)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

My man, Tom Baker! The greatest Doctor of them all. I have to admit though, that I fell asleep halfway through the Pyramids of Mars broadcast. This episode like a lot of classic Doctor Who episodes I've been watching has about one segment too many, where nothing much happens to deserve the extra 20 minutes.

They only had segments for Sara Jane, Leela and K9. Looks like Teagen, Nyssa and Adrick will be on the next Doctor's special.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

But what about Romana?!?

WILL NOBODY THINK ABOUT ROMANA?!?!?

(If I haven't already, remind me to tell my story about meeting Sarah "Nyssa" Sutton.)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But what about Romana?!?
> 
> WILL NOBODY THINK ABOUT ROMANA?!?!?
> 
> (If I haven't already, remind me to tell my story about meeting Sarah "Nyssa" Sutton.)


At least they showed Romana II in a brief film clip. No Romana I. I wonder if the companions will rate a bigger, more thorough part on the inevitable dvd.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But what about Romana?!?
> 
> WILL NOBODY THINK ABOUT ROMANA?!?!?
> 
> (If I haven't already, remind me to tell my story about meeting Sarah "Nyssa" Sutton.)


Would that be Romana I or Romana II? I liked them both, and Romana II was a special of Tom's, of course. Since they stopped after Leela, I can only hope that they will feature the other companions in a future special.

I was just the right age when I saw these to be in love with Elisabeth Sladen, Louise Jameson, Mary Tamm AND Lalla Ward.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Church AV Guy said:


> Would that be Romana I or Romana II? I liked them both, and Romana II was a special of Tom's, of course. Since they stopped after Leela, I can only hope that they will feature the other companions in a future special.


Unfortunately, the next special is Peter Davison...unless they figure Baker's tenure was worth two!


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

> Unfortunately, the next special is Peter Davison...unless they figure Baker's tenure was worth two!


I'm aware that the next one SHOULD be Davison, but given the time that Tom played The Doctor, this special, while good, really didn't do him justice--based on the time he spent playing the role. I didn't plan these specials though, so they can do whatever they want with them.

Sladen sure was a cutie!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

How are they going to do a special about Paul McGann? Or, for that matter, show an "episode," since I question if BBC America has rights to the TV movie in the states.


----------



## DianaMo (Oct 22, 2003)

My guess is that BBC America will do a revisit with Paul McGann, simply because they include him in their ads.

They don't include anything about Peter Cushing...at least not that I've noticed. So I doubt they're mentioning his work... But I could be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_and_the_Daleks

-------------------------------------------

Scene from that movie...










[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cxdWqiDEKY[/media]

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

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


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

The Baker Doctor Who is the first one I was ever really aware of. I had seen an old movie on TV with the Third Doctor but after that I had no access to Doctor who until BBCA started showing it. What little I saw looked pretty lame due to low budget special effects. The two newer doctors on BBCA were very good. The three episodes I have seen on the first three Doctors were fairly lame though the one about the plastic people was pretty good. (The main reason I was aware of the Baker Doctor was Doctor Who fans at SF conventions. I am guessing that they had PAL capable VCRs and getting the episodes sent to them. I never found a TV station showing it.)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

DianaMo said:


> They don't include anything about Peter Cushing...at least not that I've noticed. So I doubt they're mentioning his work... But I could be wrong.


I don't think they are considering the non-BBC "Dr. Who" works to be part of the main canon.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I don't think they are considering the non-BBC "Dr. Who" works to be part of the main canon.


Cushing is not. Those movies were remakes of Hartnell stories with lots of details changed. Mcgann is canon.

They claim they are doing all 11. Who says they can't get the rights to the movie? At least for one showing.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> Cushing is not. Those movies were remakes of Hartnell stories with lots of details changed. Mcgann is canon.
> 
> They claim they are doing all 11. Who says they can't get the rights to the movie? At least for one showing.


Yeah, that's why I clarified "non-BBC" works. The TV movie was an official BBC co-production along with FOX.

That last part is why I wasn't sure if BBC America could get rights, as they _might_ be still owned by FOX, at least for US airings. (It is also possible that they've allowed to be able to return to BBC exclusively, and therefore might be included in the Doctor Who television package. I dunno either way.)


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

FWIW, the American DVD of the McGann movie was released by the BBC through Warner...no Fox anywhere on the box (including the rather lengthy copyright notice, which is all BBC).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Just found this. Audition tape for Paul McGann.

Thank god they didn't follow this story line.

http://io9.com/5758458/original-aud...-whos-1996-comeback-could-have-been-way-worse


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Anyone know where I can watch The Dr Revisited for Tom Baker the 4th Dr? I missed it and the only thing I found on BBCA is the first half hour of it before the full special on the 5th Dr. I assume it will have most of the back story stuff but none of the full episode which I think was the Pyramids of Mars which I would have liked to have seen.

Gerry


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

On Demand finally has all of them


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

No comments yet about the Peter Davison episode of the Doctors Revisited? It has been four days! 

I thought Earthshock was an odd episode to show since they had already featured the Cybermen in the Patrick Troughton episode, and they have yet to feature a Dalek episode. Overall, I was rather happy with this one. Since Davison was my least favorite Doctor, I expected to not like it.

...poor Adric. I remember that they did not have the closing Doctor Who theme at the end of Earthshock, just silent credits in honor of his sacrifice.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Church AV Guy said:


> No comments yet about the Peter Davison episode of the Doctors Revisited? It has been four days!
> 
> I thought Earthshock was an odd episode to show since they had already featured the Cybermen in the Patrick Troughton episode, and they have yet to feature a Dalek episode. Overall, I was rather happy with this one. Since Davison was my least favorite Doctor, I expected to not like it.
> 
> ...


You may want to change that out of courtesy, considering this is a series of specials to help introduce new viewers to the old Doctors, you just hit me with a significant spoiler I wasn't expecting.


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

"Vengeance on Varos" will be the 6th Doctor Revisited Story according to doctorwhonews.net.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> You may want to change that out of courtesy, considering this is a series of specials to help introduce new viewers to the old Doctors, you just hit me with a significant spoiler I wasn't expecting.


Really? A spoiler from 30 years ago? Especially when they didn't exactly hold it back until it happened on the show itself. They talked about it all night.

Do you know who shot JR?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Church AV Guy said:


> No comments yet about the Peter Davison episode of the Doctors Revisited? It has been four days!


I commented in the other (wrong) Doctor Who thread. I'd link to it but don't know how to link to a specific post.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

They revealed that both "surprise" plot points in the introductory matter about the Doctor. The next time I heard about the Doctor was the one with the long scarf and then the one with the cricket bat. Either few people wore Doctor Who costumes at the SF cons or the subsequent Doctors weren't distinctive. There were always fan clubs and Doctor Who themed cons. But I never watched Doctor Who until BBCA started the new series. 
I am curious as to why the laser gun effects were so bad when ST:TOS did a better job and it was 15 years earlier. I doubt if the methods of doing those effects were a big secret.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Really? A spoiler from 30 years ago? Especially when they didn't exactly hold it back until it happened on the show itself. They talked about it all night.
> 
> Do you know who shot JR?


I wasn't accusatory, but yeah, I think in this instance a courtesy spoiler tag would have been useful, especially considering the new viewers they have from the new series that never saw the old ones, and I'm one of them. I haven't watched the special yet, so I didn't know that it was mentioned heavily in it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I am curious as to why the laser gun effects were so bad when ST:TOS did a better job and it was 15 years earlier. I doubt if the methods of doing those effects were a big secret.


Money. Star Trek was made by a major Hollywood studio; Doctor Who by the BBC (who were so notoriously cheap, Tom Baker reportedly had to leave the show because after 7 years of pay raises that didn't keep up with inflation, he couldn't afford to work there any more).

So Star Trek may have been cheap by major Hollywood studio standards, but at least it was major Hollywood studio standards and not BBC standards.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> I wasn't accusatory, but yeah, I think in this instance a courtesy spoiler tag would have been useful, especially considering the new viewers they have from the new series that never saw the old ones, and I'm one of them. I haven't watched the special yet, so I didn't know that it was mentioned heavily in it.


But then we could never have a non-spoiler tagged discussion of any tv show, movie or book because there's always going to be people who haven't seen or read them. The episode is 30 years old. Is there no statute of limitations?


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I am curious as to why the laser gun effects were so bad when ST:TOS did a better job and it was 15 years earlier. I doubt if the methods of doing those effects were a big secret.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Money. Star Trek was made by a major Hollywood studio; Doctor Who by the BBC (who were so notoriously cheap, Tom Baker reportedly had to leave the show because after 7 years of pay raises that didn't keep up with inflation, he couldn't afford to work there any more).
> 
> So Star Trek may have been cheap by major Hollywood studio standards, but at least it was major Hollywood studio standards and not BBC standards.


It's also why outdoor vs. indoor scenes were always so dramatically different, which only changed within the past 10 or 15 years or so. It always bothered me that in all BBC productions, they would use film for outdoors and video for indoors, with such a startling difference in quality. It would have been fine if they had been all video or all film. Monty Python even riffed on it at one point in a sketch, when they went outside and suddenly shouted, "We're on film!"

Greg


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> But then we could never have a non-spoiler tagged discussion of any tv show, movie or book because there's always going to be people who haven't seen or read them. The episode is 30 years old. Is there no statute of limitations?


In general I agree with you, and I don't think it should be a rule, but I do think in this specific instance, a bit of courtesy spoilproofing might have been a nice gesture.
I'm sure I'm not the only person being introduced to older Who this year.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> In general I agree with you, and I don't think it should be a rule, but I do think in this specific instance, a bit of courtesy spoilproofing might have been a nice gesture.
> I'm sure I'm not the only person being introduced to older Who this year.


On the other hand, when they spend much of the first part of the show discussing that very plot point, it's hard to expect ANYBODY not to be spoiled by the time they get to the second part of the show...


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

dianebrat said:


> In general I agree with you, and I don't think it should be a rule, but I do think in this specific instance, a bit of courtesy spoilproofing might have been a nice gesture.
> I'm sure I'm not the only person being introduced to older Who this year.


Sure, but I hate to say it. It's a risk you're taking coming into a thread that discusses specifically classic episodes of a 50 year old show.

By showing an episode with the death of "main" character BBCA in a sense spoiled you more than the posts here.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> On the other hand, when they spend much of the first part of the show discussing that very plot point, it's hard to expect ANYBODY not to be spoiled by the time they get to the second part of the show...


I did give the disclaimer I haven't gotten to that special yet, I'm still on the one before it


----------



## cal_s7 (Oct 1, 2003)

Hmm. I watched the first one last night. Or at least the start of it. Are they all like this? About 30 min of talking about the doctor and then 1.5hours of an old ep. In this case the Aztec stuff.

I am only interested in the first talking bit. I've seen all the shows. I was expecting 2 hours of talk. So, just wondering if they are all a small bit of talking and then a couple of old shows?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

cal_s7 said:


> Hmm. I watched the first one last night. Or at least the start of it. Are they all like this? About 30 min of talking about the doctor and then 1.5hours of an old ep. In this case the Aztec stuff.
> 
> I am only interested in the first talking bit. I've seen all the shows. I was expecting 2 hours of talk. So, just wondering if they are all a small bit of talking and then a couple of old shows?


Yes, each show features an old episode of the Doctor being discussed.


----------



## cal_s7 (Oct 1, 2003)

Langree said:


> Yes, each show features an old episode of the Doctor being discussed.


Thanks.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Langree said:


> Yes, each show features an old episode of the Doctor being discussed.


Yeah. The discussion length varies based on the length of the episode they show. All the episodes they have shown so far are readily available on Netflix, amazon prime, etc. So even if you hadn't seen them, you don't have to have a three hour program in your dvr to watch them.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

sieglinde said:


> I am curious as to why the laser gun effects were so bad when ST:TOS did a better job and it was 15 years earlier. I doubt if the methods of doing those effects were a big secret.


Wait, which doctor exactly were you referring to? TOS premiered in 1966. Oh, I guess you're right about 15 years, if you're talking about Davison.

As others have said, money. As much as people complain about Star Trek's effects nowadays, and (at least based on books I've read about it), those on the show complained about them, they were pretty darn high tech for the time.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BTW, I happened to see these listed on BBC America.. and at least last week, they were available On Demand.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Yeah 1966 and I was comparing it ti the effects I saw on the episode shown with the Fifth Doctor. The other episodes did it the smart way by not using very many special effects. Inassume that the newer 2005 and newer series have bigger budgets or CGI makes things cheaper.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

And I think the BBC is far more competitive now than it was in the 80s.

I don't know the politics, but apparently when Tom Baker was the Doctor, the BBC was constrained by law as to how much of a raise they could give people each year, and it was less than the increase of the cost of living. So the longer you stayed with a show (both cast and crew), the less you made in relative terms.

And clearly they weren't spending the money they saved on people on FX. 

My vague recollection was that it was the government bleeding the Beeb dry, intentionally. Fortunately, things have changed (new government? New competition?), but by all accounts, the 70s and 80s were a very grim time to be making BBC shows.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Just found this. Audition tape for Paul McGann.
> 
> Thank god they didn't follow this story line.
> 
> http://io9.com/5758458/original-aud...-whos-1996-comeback-could-have-been-way-worse


Interesting, though-- it *does* explain that line he had in the show about being half human on his mother's side. I'm wondering if that story line will eventually become canon through some later episodes or if they'll bury that 'backstory'.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

The TV license (primary funding for the BBC) was far cheaper (in reality and relative terms also) back then and easier to evade paying, there were fewer households with TVs leading to fewer licenses, merchandising was minimal compared to today and there wasn't as many BBC originals syndicated worldwide, all leading to a very restrictive cash flow for the network.


----------



## voripteth (Apr 9, 2003)

Regarding the ending of Earthshock, its really too bad someone didn't have oh, say a time machine so they could fix things...


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

voripteth said:


> Regarding the ending of Earthshock, its really too bad someone didn't have oh, say a time machine so they could fix things...


Fixed point in time ... can't be changed.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

windracer said:


> Fixed point in time ... can't be changed.


Yeah, it's always been a show that wanted to have all the fun of time travel, and none of the consequences.

It is what it is.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

voripteth said:


> Regarding the ending of Earthshock, its really too bad someone didn't have oh, say a time machine so they could fix things...





windracer said:


> Fixed point in time ... can't be changed.





Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, it's always been a show that wanted to have all the fun of time travel, and none of the consequences.
> 
> It is what it is.


Blinovitch Limitation Effect! Otherwise known as the convenient plot-device for NOT redoing mistakes.

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


----------



## tiassa (Jul 2, 2008)

voripteth said:


> Regarding the ending of Earthshock, its really too bad someone didn't have oh, say a time machine so they could fix things...


IIRC Teegan and Nyssa spend the first few minutes of the next episode pleading with the Doctor to do just that.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> You may want to change that out of courtesy, considering this is a series of specials to help introduce new viewers to the old Doctors, you just hit me with a significant spoiler I wasn't expecting.


SPOILER ALERT: fans who have not watched a lot of Doctor Who, and want to watch the Doctor Who episodes without them being spoiled, should watch the episodes first, and then the "Doctor Who Revisited" specials second.

All of the specials are followed by episodes which have just been discussed in the specials. The episode selection isn't just random.

Edited to add: or what everyone else said.


----------



## ADent (Jan 7, 2000)

At least some of the reruns of the Doctors Revisted are just the talking heads bit trimmed to 1/2 hour. The new episode has the talking head bit (typ a little more than 1/2 hour) and a full episode.

So for Peter Davidson they re-ran the Tom Baker Revisted, then ran the PD Revsited and Earthshock together.

BTW Moffet does not spoil the surprise ending of Earthshock in the intro of the episode, even though they talked about it for quite a bit just a few minutes earlier.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't think I have ever even laid eyes on the Seventh Doctor. I would have thought some of it would have been on US TV. The episode they showed with it was well done and action packed. They had a decent enough special effects budget to do better blaster effects and matter transmitter effects.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I don't think I have ever even laid eyes on the Seventh Doctor. I would have thought some of it would have been on US TV. The episode they showed with it was well done and action packed. They had a decent enough special effects budget to do better blaster effects and matter transmitter effects.


They did, at least on my own PBS station. I hated Colin Baker at the time, but really took to Sylvester McCoy. It was just before PBS stations stopped showing Doctor Who, so they probably didn't show McCoy much on your station as a result.

Greg


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I should also add that I was totally in love with Ace. 

Greg


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

gchance said:


> I should also add that I was totally in love with Ace.


Yeah, I actually don't remember McCoy...but I do remember Ace, so I must have seen at least some of them.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

I just remember that time pretty vividly. I had a friend at school who was a HUGE Doctor Who fan, and I have no idea how he had all this inside information on the show, given we were two high school students in a small town of 2500 people. Looking back, he probably read some Doctor Who magazine.

When we first watched it, he told me the whole back story of the show after watching a Tom Baker episode, and said something like, "What they're showing now is so much better, it's as good as our Star Trek movies!" Yeah right, Paul... at any rate, then he went on about Trial of a Timelord, how Colin Baker got screwed and refused to film a regeneration sequence, and that the end result was a fat guy in a Colin Baker wig suddenly becoming Sylvester McCoy.

And then it aired, and it was exactly as he described it.






Incidentally, his wife teaches at my kid's school, so I've gotten in touch with him recently. I called him out about saying it was good as Star Trek, and his response was, "Hey man, I was 16 years old." 

Greg


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

I assume they will skip Paul McGann and go right to Christopher Eccelston or will they show Paul McGann and the Doctor Who movie?


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Well, he is considered canon, but getting the rights to the movie might be an issue.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

Regarding the latest installment, I still feel that Ghost Light or Curse Of Fenric would have been a better choice for a Seventh Doctor story, especially if they were to choose a story with Ace as a companion.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Kamakzie said:


> I assume they will skip Paul McGann and go right to Christopher Eccelston or will they show Paul McGann and the Doctor Who movie?


They've said they are doing all 11. We will see how they handle it next month.

Added: FWIW, imdb lists 11 episodes and 8 on August 25.

BBC America webpage selling the DVD for 4 through 8 with the TV movie.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Their three hour time slot with an excessive amount of commercials seems to allow about n hour and a half of programming. So if I want to see the movie I will have to find it somewhere.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> Their three hour time slot with an excessive amount of commercials seems to allow about n hour and a half of programming. So if I want to see the movie I will have to find it somewhere.


Huh?

The serial they just showed was 1 hour 40 minutes long. The movie is 1 hour 29.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Yup, they adjust the preamble to the episode depending on episode length, and for the 8th, well there isn't much to say. (The movie, books, and I think a few radio plays, they may mention changes the movie made from the canon).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

By "the preamble to the episode", do you mean the retrospective on each doctor?

BTW -- yes I admit my frequent rant -- are these Doctor Who serials edited? Though I admit in these cases, I may grit my teeth and watch the (edited) version, as I'm not likely to watch them on netflix if/when I resubscribe. (I have far too many video sources already...) These doctor retrospectives are currently available On Demand, and I can FF through commercials. So I have only watched the beginning part about each doctor for a few of them.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

The eps for the first 5 doctors were the only ones I cared about seeing. The first three because I knew virtually nothing about them and then T Baker and Davison because those are the ones I know and love. Numbers 6 and 7 just seem too cartoony and the use of the question marks is just completely ridiculous. I saw the movie with #8 about ten years ago and I wasn't impressed at all. It will be interesting to see what that episode of Revisited will be about. As for 9, 10, and 11, I've seen them all, no need to revisit them this soon.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

If the movie is not shown, unlikely since they have time for it, it is available on Netflix disc. I did not realize the episodes were so long. I never read the comics or books so the movie will be it for the eighth Doctor. Netflix also offers a disc of extras so it may cover the other media.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

sieglinde said:


> If the movie is not shown, unlikely since they have time for it, it is available on Netflix disc. I did not realize the episodes were so long. I never read the comics or books so the movie will be it for the eighth Doctor. Netflix also offers a disc of extras so it may cover the other media.


The classic series stories were multi episodic arcs with each episode lasting 25 minutes counting the previous episode recap. Most stories lasted for four episodes but some were as short as two, and some as long as six.


----------



## lachacg (Jan 11, 2003)

pteronaut said:


> The classic series stories were multi episodic arcs with each episode lasting 25 minutes counting the previous episode recap. Most stories lasted for four episodes but some were as short as two, and some as long as six.


Or even a season long arc, like 4's "The Key To Time". Loved that multi-multi-arc as a kid...


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> The eps for the first 5 doctors were the only ones I cared about seeing. The first three because I knew virtually nothing about them and then T Baker and Davison because those are the ones I know and love. Numbers 6 and 7 just seem too cartoony and the use of the question marks is just completely ridiculous.


Celery on Davison's lapel and question marks on his collars aren't silly at all.

Greg


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I do like the costuming of the 21st century doctors better


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I do like the costuming of the 21st century doctors better


Yeah, they got ridiculous after Peter Davison.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Yeah, they got ridiculous after Peter Davison.


It's amusing that whenever anybody here criticizes trends that Peter Davison started, they say "after Peter Davison."


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

The question marks are no more silly then them trying to jam "Doctor who" into dialogue in every episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Langree said:


> The question marks are no more silly then them trying to jam "Doctor who" into dialogue in every episode.


Yeah, that's one unfortunate tendency of Moffat's...anything that's worth doing is worth doing over and over and over.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Let's all settle down and look at Ace. 










Greg


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

They loo silly and outrageous today but they fit the times they were designed in. Outlandish but within the wilder guidelines of the times. Perspective.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> They look silly and outrageous today but they fit the times they were designed in. Outlandish but within the wilder guidelines of the times. Perspective.


Well, that's not how I remember it...I think Baker II or McCoy would have stood out in any crowd, even in the 80s.

And that's coming from a guy who worked at Shinders in the 80s! (Minneapolis in-joke)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, that's not how I remember it...I think Baker II or McCoy would have stood out in any crowd, even in the 80s.
> 
> And that's coming from a guy who worked at Shinders in the 80s! (Minneapolis in-joke)


Stood out. Yes. But not as ridiculous looking as they seem today. Heck, Matt Smith would stand out with a bow tie and the occasional fez.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

lachacg said:


> Or even a season long arc, like 4's "The Key To Time". Loved that multi-multi-arc as a kid...


Was that the one with Romana II and a white and black time something-or-other that had a bird on the tops of their heads?

Gerry


----------



## lachacg (Jan 11, 2003)

Gerryex said:


> Was that the one with Romana II and a white and black time something-or-other that had a bird on the tops of their heads?


Don't remember the bird thing but that was the last of Romana I before she became Romana II. Romana II (the actress) was in the keys of time serial playing a different character. When Romana regenerated into II she purposely chose the form of that character so they could explain away why the actress was the same.

That whole traveling with a female timelord companion always fascinated me.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Yes, the White Guardian was the one who sent the Doctor on the quest for the Key to Time. (with the "bird" on his head).

Black Guardian is the bad guy


----------



## USAFSSO (Aug 24, 2005)

Looks like the movie will air.

http://tennantnews.blogspot.com/2013/08/usa-programme-details-for-doctor-who.html


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

USAFSSO said:


> Looks like the movie will air.
> 
> http://tennantnews.blogspot.com/2013/08/usa-programme-details-for-doctor-who.html


Of course it is.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Langree said:


> Yes, the White Guardian was the one who sent the Doctor on the quest for the Key to Time. (with the "bird" on his head).
> 
> Black Guardian is the bad guy


Ah yes, they were Guardians. I knew that one was dressed in white and the other in black and the one in black was the bad guy, but I forgot what their title was. Did both the white and black one have a bird on his head?

Gerry


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Kamakzie said:


> I assume they will skip Paul McGann and go right to Christopher Eccelston or will they show Paul McGann and the Doctor Who movie?





TonyD79 said:


> They've said they are doing all 11. We will see how they handle it next month.
> 
> Added: FWIW, imdb lists 11 episodes and 8 on August 25.
> 
> BBC America webpage selling the DVD for 4 through 8 with the TV movie.


Well, they certainly showed the movie which was actually quit a bit shorter than some of the multi-part episodes.

I really, REALLY wish they had just skipped McGann completely. Being an American production, there were so many cringe-worthy moments, and extended moments, that I just wish they had declared it noncannon and let it go. There were at least two movies starring Peter Cushing as the Doctor that were left out.

Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. 
Dr. Who and the Daleks


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Church AV Guy said:


> Well, they certainly showed the movie which was actually quit a bit shorter than some of the multi-part episodes.
> 
> I really, REALLY wish they had just skipped McGann completely. Being an American production, there were so many cringe-worthy moments, and extended moments, that I just wish they had declared it noncannon and let it go. There were at least two movies starring Peter Cushing as the Doctor that were left out.
> 
> ...


The two movies are not canon, in fact, they are "Doctor Who" in name only, McGann is canon to the BBC series and counts as one of the regenertions,which is why they showed it.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Langree said:


> The two movies are not canon, in fact, they are "Doctor Who" in name only, McGann is canon to the BBC series and counts as one of the regenertions,which is why they showed it.


Yup. The movies were contrary to canon, actually. Completely different take on the Doctor. I always considered them odd. The McGann movie was an attempt to continue the series and hence part of the story. There are oddities at odds with a lot of other canon but when a show runs for (now) 50 years, it is amazing that they are able to keep the level of continuity that they have.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Just watched the movie. Not as bad as I remember. Actually, pretty decent. Fits pretty well with the new series.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Wow. You are very charitable. I thought it was incredibly bad.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Just watched the movie. Not as bad as I remember. Actually, pretty decent. Fits pretty well with the new series.





LoadStar said:


> Wow. You are very charitable. I thought it was incredibly bad.


 I have to agree with Loadstar. I thought it was choppy and weird. It felt like it was made by someone who didn't really understand the show.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's interesting, though, how much it anticipates the new series. Kind of like a half-baked rough draft. All the elements are there, they just don't come together yet.

Maybe it was ahead of its time? Or maybe it was just half-baked. Still, I'd classify it as "interesting failure." And Eric Roberts makes a much, MUCH better Master than John Simm!


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Except for some of the William Hartnell episodes I've probably just about every episode of Dr Who out there. But I never saw this movie so I was anxious to see it. While not horribly bad it was not very good either. The lady Dr who initially thought our hero was crazy sure got convinced quickly. So convinced that she took the Cop's gun and fired it at his motorcycle. I thought that was an amazing leap of faith!

And . . .


Rob Helmerichs said:


> And Eric Roberts makes a much, MUCH better Master than John Simm!


I agree, but that's really not saying too much. I thought the John Simm Master was absolutely terrible especially compared to classic performances by Roger Delgado and Anthony Ainley.

Anyway, glad I was able to see the movie but just as glad it wasn't too long!!

Gerry


----------



## lambertman (Dec 21, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. You are very charitable. I thought it was incredibly bad.


Paul was great and the second half of the movie had its moments, but the Snake!Master was horrendous.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

nirisahn said:


> I have to agree with Loadstar. I thought it was choppy and weird. It felt like it was made by someone who didn't really understand the show.


That's interesting. Not sure how you mean. Would like to hear more. I thought the opposite and felt more like it presaged the eventual return.

I am not charitable at all. I've only seen it once before when it was first televised and I didn't like it but watching it now it seems like a decent (calling something decent is charitable?) piece between the old and new series.

As for not understanding the show. It paid homage to the old show with a lot of small detail. It was bigger and more polished than the old show but so is the current version. Paul McGann would've been a solid Doctor and they got Sylvester McCoys Doctor about right in his small part.

Sure. They had small issues (which bothered me more back then) in saying the Doctor was half human but it meant nothing to the story and can be ignored and in calling the chameleon circuit a cloaking device (big deal).

But. The Master was almost perfect to what the Master always was. He was very true to the Master from Keepers of Trakken and beyond. The Doctor was the Doctor.

The writing could've been better but it was acceptable. Not great. Not bad either.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

I'm curious as to why Paul McGann didn't appear in the interview segment. 
Found it interesting that he is younger than Peter Capaldi by a couple of years.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Church AV Guy said:


> Well, they certainly showed the movie which was actually quit a bit shorter than some of the multi-part episodes.


I recorded then deleted this (I'll likely watch the retrospective part via On Demand).. But I FFed through and the movie was being shown in stretchovision, at least on the SD version I recorded.. (I *thought* I checked On Demand for the HD version too, and it was also stretched, but I'm not sure.)

I remember liking the movie, at least in the same way as I like virtually every Star Trek show/TV series --- it's better than no [Doctor Who | Star Trek], even though there are dud episodes/movies of both.

I keep meaning to watch the Key to Time season some eon, but it's annoying that only 4 out of 6 are on Amazon Prime.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> I recorded then deleted this (I'll likely watch the retrospective part via On Demand).. But I FFed through and the movie was being shown in stretchovision, at least on the SD version I recorded.. (I *thought* I checked On Demand for the HD version too, and it was also stretched, but I'm not sure.)
> 
> I remember liking the movie, at least in the same way as I like virtually every Star Trek show/TV series --- it's better than no [Doctor Who | Star Trek], even though there are dud episodes/movies of both.
> 
> I keep meaning to watch the Key to Time season some eon, but it's annoying that only 4 out of 6 are on Amazon Prime.


They started off showing the episodes OAR and somewhere they started stretching them. I've been watching Netflix versions but I don't think Netflix has the movie, so I unstretched it.


----------



## LordXenophon (Sep 4, 2013)

TonyD79 said:


> Sure. They had small issues (which bothered me more back then) in saying the Doctor was half human but it meant nothing to the story and can be ignored and in calling the chameleon circuit a cloaking device (big deal).


What's rule #1?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The movie as a whole and Eric Roberts in particular weren't as bad as I remember, either. It wasn't great but it was better than the typical SyFy Original movie. The biggest shame is that it was so low budget. 

I definitely preferred the movie's Tardis control room than any of the more recent tv series control rooms that look like they were assembled from various garage sales.

The Doctor said he was half human on his mother's side. Has he mentioned that since the series reboot?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> The movie as a whole and Eric Roberts in particular weren't as bad as I remember, either. It wasn't great but it was better than the typical SyFy Original movie. The biggest shame is that it was so low budget.


I think you just set the stage for Doctor Who meets Sharknado.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Wow. You are very charitable. I thought it was incredibly bad.


I've already posted elsewhere, but the fact that it was supposed to be set in San Francisco drove me batty.

There were moments where I like McGann's performance very much, but 90% of the time I was thinking of what I would do to fix it if I were given the chance.

Murray Gold and Ben Foster have really, really spoiled me.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> The Doctor said he was half human on his mother's side. Has he mentioned that since the series reboot?


Nope. And it's a subject of insane fan debate. You pretty much have three choices:

A) Ignore it, it's something crazy Americans threw in to give him an american twist when they had control of production.

B) Consider it Canon. It has never been mentioned outside the 1996 movie. But it has never been *directly* contradicted either. (Although it's been indirectly contradicted).

C) Come up with a wacky reason why he was half human for that regeneration. (And there are some doozies out there)

I'm firmly in the 'ignore it' camp personally. Don't dwell on it too long, you'd sooner bring peace to the middle east, then make peace between camps A) and B)...


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

D) The Doctor lies.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

danterner said:


> D) The Doctor lies.


And there's the solution. :up:


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

But it would help to explain why the Doctor has such an affinity for Earth and its unimportant Earthlings.

I don't think we've ever had flashbacks to the Doctor's childhood, have we?


----------



## rich (Mar 18, 2002)

I saw on Tennant's Facebook page that the Ninth Doctor's revisited episodes will be "Bad Wolf" and "Parting of the Ways".


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> But it would help to explain why the Doctor has such an affinity for Earth and its unimportant Earthlings.
> 
> I don't think we've ever had flashbacks to the Doctor's childhood, have we?


Only in so much as we saw a minor glimpse of it with The Master as a child, but the focus was on The Master.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

I still stand by my opinion that someone SHOULD have simply said that movie was NOT canon and let it go. It was fun and all, and worth a watch, but it threw so many things out there, like the Doctor being half human, the Master being some translucent snake-like thing, the Eye of Harmony being on board the TARDIS, and could only open by having an Earthling stare into a reflecting rod socket ?!? to name a few. Worse ones are the ability to set time back, reversing actions that had happened INSIDE the TARDIS itself!

I just think it would have been best let go. I know it IS considered canon, but I wish it hadn't been, that's all.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Church AV Guy said:


> I still stand by my opinion that someone SHOULD have simply said that movie was NOT canon and let it go. It was fun and all, and worth a watch, but it threw so many things out there, like the Doctor being half human, the Master being some translucent snake-like thing, the Eye of Harmony being on board the TARDIS, and could only open by having an Earthling stare into a reflecting rod socket ?!? to name a few. Worse ones are the ability to set time back, reversing actions that had happened INSIDE the TARDIS itself!
> 
> I just think it would have been best let go. I know it IS considered canon, but I wish it hadn't been, that's all.


Thing is, the comic strips and books of the continuing stories of THAT Doctor started almost immediately after the movie, including him going back and working with the other 7 incarnations. At the time there were no plans to restart the series (after the movie "flopped"). So they kept things going in book, comic, and radio form, up until 2005.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> The Doctor said he was half human on his mother's side. Has he mentioned that since the series reboot?





kdmorse said:


> Nope. And it's a subject of insane fan debate. You pretty much have three choices:
> 
> A) Ignore it, it's something crazy Americans threw in to give him an american twist when they had control of production.
> 
> ...





danterner said:


> D) The Doctor lies.





Jstkiddn said:


> And there's the solution. :up:


Having now watched the movie, I'm going to have to go back and remove (D) from the running. There's no question that in the movie his half-humanity was presented as objective fact. It wasn't just that he said it - there was a whole scene with The Master looking at, and then through, the Doctor's eyes, observing them and remarking about them "ah - he's half-human." Of the three choices above, I'm going with A.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Someone recently posted an youtube clip of (iirc) Paul McGann reading for the part and...



Spoiler



the script he was reading indicated that the Doctor's father came to Earth and fell in love with an earth woman who had 2 sons-- the Master and the Doctor... This may in fact be 'unpublished canon', or something the current writers wish never happened.

Did half human on his mother's side mean his mother was half human, or that the Doctor is half Human and that his mother was all human.

They made a point of how important Donna was in Journey's End and how all paths intersected with her some how. I've mused that perhaps Donna is the Doctor's mother... Part Time Lord through genetic metacrisis or whatever that technobabble in Journey's End was all about. She would be an ideal candidate to make the doctor half human on his mother's side. But I doubt that's where they were going.

I did think that the woman who kept appearing to Donna's Dad may have been the Doctor's mother (the weeping angel of old when the time lords came storming in at the end of 'end of time'). They never did explain her role as far as I recall.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

There's a big marathon soon (over the weekend I think?) of just the Doctors Revisited sections (not the story for each doctor).. I saw it in my to do list.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

mattack said:


> There's a big marathon soon (over the weekend I think?) of just the Doctors Revisited sections (not the story for each doctor).. I saw it in my to do list.


I think it starts Monday morning. They seem to have taken the episode part of the shows and broken them from the documentary portion. There are 30 minut segments that I presume are the documentary portions and then a number of 3 hour segments. The 3 hour segments seem to skip (i.e. one for 1st doctor and one for 4th doctor, but I didn't see 2nd or 3rd iirc). Either they have lots of commercials, or possibly they're doubling up on the episodes and it's really 1+2 for the first 3 hour block and 3+4 fo the other one. I suspect it's lots of commercials though.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

cstelter said:


> I think it starts Monday morning. They seem to have taken the episode part of the shows and broken them from the documentary portion. There are 30 minut segments that I presume are the documentary portions


They've been airing these 30 minute documentary parts all along. They have been aired in the 30 minute time slot just before the next full episode.


----------

