Talk:Doctor Who (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Footage

From the article:

Commercials on the Fox network advertising the film used special effects footage from the 1986 story The Trial of a Time Lord, although this footage was not used in the movie. This marked the first time that footage from the original BBC series had been shown on a major American network.

Um, why isn't PBS a "major American network"? And even if it technically isn't, it's not much of a point to make, as PBS programming is just as wide spread as NBC, CBS, etc. 151.197.54.58 17:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PBS isn't one network, in the sense that it is a single organized broadcast entity (as with the relationship between a standard network and its affiliates). Indeed, every PBS member station has almost completely different programming! There are at least three such stations available over air in San Francisco alone, and there is almost no cross-over in content amongst them. Fox, on the other hand, is a single broadcast entity with essentially standardized scheduling across all its affiliates. --71.139.9.136 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "commercial network" would make more sense? Type 40 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PBS is a network but its member stations typically carry a fair amount of syndicated programming from sources like American Public Television. This content is technically *not* "on the PBS network" even if it's being sold by an individual PBS member station to substantial numbers of other PBS member stations serving other communities. American Public Television or other syndicated educational programming may appear on some but not all PBS stations and/or appear at different times on different stations. Only the core programming is distributed by the main PBS network. K7L (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2006

Doctor Who (1996 film) → Doctor Who (film) — I wrongly moved it from Doctor Who (1996) to Doctor Who (1996 film) due to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), but I did not realize there was only one Doctor Who movie. However, the convention states that it should be located at Doctor Who (film), which is currently occupied by a redirect page. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Oppose Whilst there may not be another film just called "Doctor Who", there are other Doctor Who films. Best to keep the year in it. (see debates above), or call it "Doctor Who: The TV movie" or something like that. -- Beardo 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, such as it is. The year should be kept, at least. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose; although there are no other films with the plain title Doctor Who, there are two theatrical Doctor Who films from the 1960s, not to mention specials from the television series that might be considered as "films". Furthermore, multi-part serials from the 1963–1989 series were often combined in syndication into movie-length stories (called "Whovies" on some stations); I believe these are still broadcast on some PBS stations in the US. The year should be retained in the article title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doctor Who Paul McGann 1996 Does anyone know how to get a Region 1 copy of this DVD movie? MysteryVamp@hotmail.com

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Doctor Who (1996 film) → Doctor Who (film) – I see that this has already been discussed, but the fact of the matter is that even though there are more Doctor Who films, none of them are called Doctor Who. Same with The Muppets, they've had many films, but only one is called The Muppets. Unreal7 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There have been multiple films and also the near constant talk of a proposed new theatrical feature, which makes the proposed title ambiguous. Also "film" isn't always synonymous with TV movie, which makes just "film" on its own even worse. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose multiple Doctor Who films and film projects, documented in multiple articles -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "Doctor Who (film)" should be retargetted to Doctor Who#Adaptations and other appearances -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who (film) already redirects here anyway. 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support As stated, no other Doctor Who film is actually just called "Doctor Who" so it isn't ambiguous, plus Doctor Who (film) already redirects here anyway so no issues there. And if someone does happen upon the page looking for the Cushing Dalek films, there's already a hatnote at the top linking to them. I really don't see the issue. --DocNox (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 16:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the only film that has this title, per WP:PRECISE. I am fine with providing whatever hatnote would be helpful. I don't think this matter is that confusing. EDIT: This may help show what is really out there. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tony Dow

I would like to know why my insert re Tony Dow was deleted. 70.60.179.74 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Because as you stated yourself, it was trivia. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section

Although I know from my own experience in fandom that the issues mentioned in the "Controversy" section are indeed subjects about which Doctor Who fans have argued vigorously ever since 1996, I'm worried that without any citations the section largely amounts to original research. I've got a lot on my plate right now, so if someone feels like taking this on it'd be great. Possible sources might include DWM, Dreamwatch and Starburst from shortly after the TVM aired, the Completely Useless Encyclopedia (which I think references some of these controversies), and the like. I think that David Howe's Television Companion even addresses some of these issues, and some of them may be rebutted in Regeneration by Russell and Segal. Anyway, if someone wants to take a stab at finding sources for that section, it would be a big improvement to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources there and it adds little to knowledge of Doctor Who (as opposed to various aspects of fan culture). I'm moving it here until such time as someone decided what needs to be done with it. Text follows:

With its often dramatic changes or additions to established continuity, the TV movie has caused considerable controversy within Doctor Who fandom, some fans charging that it violates canon in several areas. Although the controversy has dimmed somewhat in the wake of the 2005 series (which goes some lengths to address or resolve some of the conflicts), some Doctor Who fans go so far as to disavow the movie from "official" continuity. Meanwhile, other fans insist that all of these points can be easily explained or interpreted in the context of the series. Some lasting points of contention include:

• The Doctor's being revealed as being half-human.
• That the Eye of Harmony hypothetically should be on Gallifrey; not in the TARDIS, as shown here.
• The fact that only a human retina-print can open the Eye of Harmony on a Gallifreyan vessel
• That the Doctor and his companion, Grace, enter into a romantic relationship (often seen as a taboo).
• That the Doctor uses the term "cloaking device" to refer to the TARDIS' chameleon circuit.
• That the movie's take on the Time Lord regenerative process differs from earlier depictions.
• That the interior of the TARDIS significantly differs from earlier versions.

The writers of numerous original Doctor Who novels that followed the movie, such as Terrance Dicks and Lance Parkin, have attempted to reconcile these and other points of continuity, with varying degrees of success.

Several rebuttals have been made by other fans, starting with the argument that continuity in the original series was never that strong anyway. Specific rebuttals include:

• Although the Doctor has stated that he is not from Earth, there is nothing to explicitly contradict a mixed heritage. Indeed, the series contains vague hints that may support the theory, depending on interpretation. In The Evil of the Daleks, the Daleks identify the Doctor as "more than human"; in Planet of the Spiders, when the TARDIS returns the dying Third Doctor to Earth, he states it brought him "home". In addition, the Doctor's family background has never been explored in the series beyond the fact that he travelled for a time with his granddaughter, and an occasional reference to other relatives. Alternatively, as the film claims that a Time Lord can change species upon regeneration , some fans speculate that only the Eighth Doctor may be half-human. Another popular theory draws from the time the Seventh Doctor spends masquerading as a human named John Smith in Paul Cornell's 1995 Virgin New Adventures novel Human Nature, speculating that the Doctor's human DNA is left over from that experience. Although the revived television series has thus far avoided the issue, the New Series Adventures novel Only Human (2005) states that the Doctor's DNA is "close" to that of humans.
• The Eye of Harmony shown in the telemovie was just a power-tap; a dimensional link to the actual Eye of Harmony. This explanation has been used in spin-off media, and referenced in a "beginner's guide" to the show on the official Doctor Who website.
• The spinoff adventure The Apocalypse Element attepts to explain the Eye of Harmony's response to human eyeprints. In that story, a previous Doctor's human companion keys the Eye of Harmony on Gallifrey to respond only to her own retina print. The story ends with an offhand comment by the Doctor about the possible consequences of such an act.
• The Doctor had an arguably romantic relationship in The Aztecs, and as he also had a granddaughter, presumably he had sexual relations at some point. In the 2005 series, the Ninth Doctor's (and later the Tenth's) relationship with his companion, Rose Tyler, seemed to verge on actual romance (with Rose ultimately declaring her feelings for the Doctor, though the Doctor is prevented from reciprocating), as did the Fourth Doctor's relationship with the second incarnation of Romana. Furthermore, the 2006 episode School Reunion portrays the Doctor's earlier relationship with Sarah Jane Smith in a nominally romantic light.
• Different eras of the series use different terminology. In 1965's The Time Meddler the TARDIS' disguising mechanism was called a "camouflage unit". The term "chameleon circuit" was introduced in the Target Books novelisations, then only first used in the series proper in 1981's Logopolis. "Cloaking device" is a common term in late 20th century English and would be instantly understandable where "chameleon circuit" would not be. In the 2005 series episode Boom Town, when Rose refers to the TARDIS's cloaking device, the Doctor clarifies that it is called the chameleon circuit.
• Furthermore, the Doctor may have misused terms or provided incorrect biographical information while his mind remained partially addled post-regeneration.
• The concept of regeneration has never been consistent and nothing in the telemovie directly contradicts the television series.
• The interior of the TARDIS had already changed several times throughout the series, if in more subtle ways. For that matter, the interior depicted in the 2005 series is an even more radical departure (whereas the version seen in the movie somewhat recalls the wood-panelled console room used in the series during 1976-1977). In Doctor Who Magazine, 2005 series producer Russell T. Davies explains that the TARDIS interior can be reconfigured in much the same way as its exterior; he compares the process to a Winamp skin.

The film also rattled cages amongst several people associated with Doctor Who. Former script-editor Terrance Dicks famously said, "It's incoherent crap!"; writers Pip and Jane Baker were particularly critical of the abundance of apparent plot holes, and of how McGann spends most of his screen time "in a daze". Even Sylvester McCoy commented that the script — in particular the regeneration, and the scene where the Master attempts to take the Doctor's lives — robbed the Doctor of his dignity. In a 2005 episode of Doctor Who Confidential, McCoy mused, "I always thought [that] the [Doctor Who] film would probably have done better if they had begun the film with Paul [McGann]; and once the series had got going, I should then have come in to show how it [the regeneration] had happened."

Despite this, the television movie is generally accepted as canonical, as evidenced by the current production team classifying Christopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor and by the BBC featuring the Eighth Doctor in a 40th anniversary tribute montage included on a number of DVD releases during 2002-2003.

--Tony Sidaway 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any published speculation that the Doctor's "half-human" status may have been the result of the Seventh Doctor using the genetic transformation technology seen in Human Nature in a previous unseen adventure? If Time Lords can change into any species using this technology, why not "half human", perhaps as a means of making the Tardis inaccessible to other Time Lords? Type 40 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the scene at the Institute of Technological Advancement and Research, the Doctor says, "In the fight for survival, there are no rules." This seems to be telling.

Soon after, he tells a security person, "I'm half human, on my mother's side."

In the "Smith and Jones" episode where the Judoon search through the high-jacked hospital for non-humans, the Tenth Doctor manipulates the criminal, Florence Finnegan, into drinking his blood and thereby hiding from the Judoon in death while at the same time exposing her to them since she now registers his non-human DNA. IF there is human DNA ("blood") in his body, it's not enough to protect him or Finnegan.

Always remember, there's - "Rule Number One: The Doctor Lies".

A complete aside: Eric Roberts made a great Master, in my opinion. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This thread is from 6+1⁄2 years ago. Anyway, we should not be assembling hints from different stories to create our own interpretations: that is WP:SYNTH. However, if others have already made such connections, we may report on their conclusions (including their routes to those conclusions where necessary), but always giving the source of those conclusions since it can be so controversial. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

I have protected this article for three days due to the edit warring related to the infobox. Please discuss the matter here rather than endless back & forth changes. As far as I can tell the Wrong Version I have protected is the status quo ante. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast list again

The above note by Timrollpickering refers to these edits. A very similar problem has occurred again. Can we at least discuss this without repeated reversion? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the recent change to the infobox, and as someone who doesn't edit/follow a lot of Doctor Who articles, it seemed like a good change. I was surprised, frankly, to see it reverted so quickly. I don't have a DVD of the movie to check for myself, but were all these actors billed prominently, i.e. opening credits or whatever? If the list is a comprehensive cast list, I would say it should be trimmed. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just lazily reverted to remove the syntax error (master= isn't a valid parameter). DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a comprehensive cast list, but in that respect is no different from any of the other 200+ articles about individual Doctor Who stories. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I might say that in that case, it's the other articles that should be changed, not this one. MOS:INFOBOX makes it pretty clear that an infobox should be brief and act as a summary. A minor role that would barely merit mention in prose in a "cast" section definitely does not belong in an infobox which is long enough already. I don't see a good reason for an exception here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the medium-specific infobox ought to take precedence over the fannish Doctor Who story chronology infobox. It should use the standard film one. The prose can make clear in its own way that the film takes place after Survival and series cancellation, and having failed as a pilot, long prior to the series' revival.Zythe (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If we cut down all of them - the TV stories included - to just those people named in the opening credits, there will be one or occasionally two names for each pre-1996 story - the writers. Nobody else - not even the actor who portrayed The Doctor - was given a credit in the opening titles of the TV stories until "Rose" in 2005, which credits five names at the start - Christopher Eccleston, Billie Piper, Russell T Davies, Phil Collinson and Keith Boak. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a black-and-white rule. The point is that it should be notable roles in the episode. Editors are free to use some discretion when choosing which to include, but that doesn't mean we are forced to choose one extreme or the other. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To give a bit of history about this Dr Who serials/episode articles used to have a "Cast" section in the body of the article. Then about five, or maybe six, years ago a consensus was formed (I have know idea where you would find that though) that all TV shows casts were to be moved into the infobox. Please note: that this did not happen with our film articles. While infoboxes are to be kept brief it is not "fannish" to include every cast member in a given episode. It is pretty much standard practice when there are individual articles for each episode of a given series. My preference is that we list a few names in the infobox and restore a full cast section in the article but I know that I am in the minority in this and it would require a larger conversation than just this thread. As things currently stand it does no harm for us to be thorough and have a full cast list in the infobox per WP:IAR. MarnetteD | Talk 01:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is clear: we should follow general Wikipedia practice and not do something different for Doctor Who stories. We need to stick to MOS:INFOBOX. Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

which "general Wikipedia practice"? - the MOS pages you linked says "Consistency between infoboxes" - having the guest cast in the infobox would mean "Consistency" with all other Doctor Who articles. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I stated Dr Who infoboxes are not the only ones to list the entire cast. BTW a thorough reading of the other posts at this thread show a local consensus for keeping the infobox as is. I am afraid that I am notiding a WP:IDONTLIKETHAT situation arising MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

'The Doctor' and 'The Old Doctor'

As we are supposed to keep a 'real-world perspective' on these things, I propose that we change the Cast section to:

• Paul McGann as The Eighth Doctor, credited as The Doctor
• Sylvester McCoy as The Seventh Doctor, credited as The Old Doctor jSmith11 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem with these is that you violate WP:EGG. We also do not need to clutter up the infobox with this kind of thing. These cast listings are unique to the TV film and they can be mentioned in the body of the article - perhaps "cast notes" section or they could be footnoted from the infobox listing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:EGG is not a major concern here; the presence or removal of the hidden "Regeneration" link does not materially change the proposal. As for the rest, I don't see why a "credited as" note is a problem. I think the cast list is clean enough that a 4-word or so parenthetical note after two roles wouldn't look out of place. Isn't the Cast section exactly where they belong? Why does the fact that they're unique to the film matter (this is an article on the film, after all)? --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We always work to avoid infobox bloat and these add to that. The uniqueness "matters" because this will be the only infobox with notes like this in it. They fit better in the body of the article due to the fact that you can add a description of the reasons why these unique cast listings occurred. You cannot assume (and doing so is very "In Universe") that readers not familiar with the show will have any understanding of why these cast listings are different. Remember infoboxes are meant to give thumbnail mentions of items that are to be fleshed out with details in the body of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh and WP:EGG is a major concern when the word "Old" links to "regeneration" as the two terms have nothing to do with each other. Even someone like myself, who has a great deal of "In Universe" knowledge of the show, finds that linking hard to justify. MarnetteD | Talk 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And yet one more thing. The "The Eighth Doctor, credited as The Doctor" could be applied to every serial/episode infobox (and yes I know we would have "Doctor Who" in place of "The Doctor" sometimes) and there is no need to go down that road. MarnetteD | Talk 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants to change the infobox. The original proposal was for the cast section. What I meant by saying that EGG didn't matter was that it wasn't the crux of the proposal (which wasn't mine, btw), just incidental to it. I was more concerned that citing EGG was "piling on" a bit. Point taken about "Eighth Doctor" and "The Doctor" in every other episode, though. I hadn't considered that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand your ideas but we may be thinking of different things. When the OP posted "cast section" I felt they were referring to the cast list in the infobox (especially since that is where they have been making their edits) and all my posts have proceeded from the this thought. If they mean adding it to the "cast notes" section then that is actually in line with my first post. Again, that would be a good way to proceed as some explanation could be added to why this film used the term "Old Doctor" and we could avoid any EGG problems. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I meant in the cast section. jSmith11 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I created the cast section because it is a film and like the Day of the Doctor was some shown in some US/Canadian cinemas. The credits credit the Doctors and Old and The Doctor because the film was to make Americans understand it. The BBC website and Episode Guide uses the original credits however Sylvester McCoy is the Seventh Doctor and Paul McGann is the Eighth Doctor. They even mention seventh and eighth lives in the film. We should not use Old and The Doctor as it would confuse people. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

More than Human

The article states that this is a reference to a line cut from "Remembrance of the Daleks" but states "although how the Master would know this is unknown."

In the original ending to "Survival" the Doctor says he's more than human, to the Master. That scene was also cut, but perhaps that's where he heard it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.253.217 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a deleted scene in Remeberence of the Daleks to Davros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.233.56 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Page rename request for April 5, 2016

Rename the page to Doctor Who (Episode) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.45.224 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't even engage here - any argument for this change cannot validate it against reasons not too. Also this IP has been making very disruptive and illogical edits. Randomly view several and all appear to be vandalism. Dresken (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I've reverted a lot myself in the last few weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808053048/http://www.kasterborous.com/2014/08/capaldi-couldve-eighth-doctor/ to http://www.kasterborous.com/2014/08/capaldi-couldve-eighth-doctor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)