Talk:Doctor Who (1996 film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Doctor Who (1996 film)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pilot

Paul A removed the description of this production as a pilot episode. [1] I was very much under the impression that it was hoped that this would be the start of a series, starring Paul McGann, but that it wasn't popular enough to continue. Doesn't that make it a failed pilot, or am I misinformed? At the very least, we should state that fans hoped it would become a series - and perhaps also that it was/is sometimes described as being the pilot for one? - IMSoP 03:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Certainly it was hoped that this would be the start of a series, but it was just hope, not backed up by anything on paper. The network wasn't interested in a series, and as far as they were concerned the telemovie was a one-off deal. The hope was that the telemovie would be a big success and the network would decide that they were interested in a series after all, but at the time the network was only prepared to commit to one telemovie, and that was the basis on which it was made. --Paul A 05:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The film was officially described as being a "backdoor pilot", meaning it wasn't produced as a pilot specifically but would have been treated like one had it been successful. An example of a backdoor pilot is the V mini-series of 1984 which was popular enough to spawn a sequel miniseries and then a weekly series of its own. The first Six Million Dollar Man TV movie was also a backdoor pilot as there was no plan to do a weekly series when it was made. According to online reports after the movie failed to spark a series, Fox had the choice between giving Dr. Who a go-ahead or bankrolling Space: Above and Beyond and chose the American creation. 23skidoo 18:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Best title?

Is Enemy Within the best location for this article? In my experience, few fans actually use the "Enemy Within" title. The BBC's DVD release used Doctor Who: The Movie, as does Outpost Gallifrey. The BBC website's episode guide uses Doctor Who: The TV Movie. I'd suggest that either of these would be better than the unofficial, seldom-used "Enemy Within". (Google gives 3,670 hits for "Doctor Who" "Enemy Within", but 24,000 for "Doctor Who" "TV Movie". I'd call that a consensus.) --Josiah Rowe 09:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google is notoriously bad for "proving" a consensus on things like this - bear in mind that if "Doctor Who TV Movie" (or variants) is one title then it has a built in advantage over "Doctor Who" & "Enemy Within" on a Google search. A lot of people tend to talk round the title problem so will write "the TV movie" without actually giving it a title (similarly another story is often written as "the first Dalek story" to avoid using any of the contentious titles). More pertinantly a lot of websites merely copy one another and the result distorts it all.

Enemy Within was certainly common for a good while as it's the only title that any of the production team ever gave at any point. The "proper" answer would be "Doctor Who" but that is clearly not a viable option and so we're down to disambiguators of one form or another. I recall Doctor Who Magazine instead used "Doctor Who (1996)" or "The TV Movie" (can't recall what gets used today) and the whole thing gets messy. Timrollpickering 09:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To chime in, most people simply call it the TVM. Nobody actually uses the full title "Doctor Who: The Movie" - which is what is on the box, and definitely not what is used in the production notes, which was simply "Doctor Who" (no matter what Ian Levine might say on the Restoration Team forums). "Doctor Who: The Movie" falls in the same category as "An Unearthly Child" for "100,000 BC", IMO. Insofor as useage is concerned, we have disambiguators and redirects, and only a very few places do we actually use "Enemy Within" as a link to the article - most times in the entries we just say "The 1996 television movie" or variations on that. Enemy Within seems, ulimately, not so much the "proper" title for the entry but the least disambiguous for our purposes. I might clarify that in the notes. --khaosworks 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is not how Doctor Who fans refer to the TVM, but what works best in the context of an encyclopaedia. Factual accuracy is the key here - see, for example, "The White Album" under its official title of The Beatles (album). I would prefer "Doctor Who (1996 TV movie)" or "Doctor Who (1996)", as these both include the official name of the programme and disambiguate it from the 'classic' series. It would be easy to direct people to the TVM - from the Doctor Who page, from the current Enemy Within page as a redirect, and adding as many other redirects as we think necessary.

Also, while Enemy Within may provide a direct route to the TVM for people interested in Doctor Who, it doesn't help other users who may be looking for a different Enemy Within, and have to go to a disambiguation page first. If we moved the TVM to a different page, typing "Enemy Within" would take users direct to the disambiguation. --Martpol 17:11, 30 Mar 2005

Martpol makes a good point. If there is a change, I would plonk for "Doctor Who (1996)" myself. I'm only horribly lazy and dread the amount of links to be fixed. Anybody else have an opinion on this? --khaosworks 21:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this article hasn't been renamed I assume no consensus was reached. I think it should either be renamed Doctor Who (1996 film) or Enemy Within (Doctor Who) due to the growing number of items at the Enemy Within disambiguation page. I don't really see an unofficial and non-canonical title trumping the Star Trek episode, for example. So how does one rename an article without losing the "History"? 23skidoo 03:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can just "move" the article, and the History will be moved with it. The biggest problem will be fixing the damned redirects. Factually, I suppose, the best title for it would be "Doctor Who (1996 television movie)", although these days I prefer "Doctor Who (Enemy Within)" as in the infobox. Can we come to a consensus about the title before we move it? --khaosworks 03:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who (Enemy Within) works for me. If not already set up, we should probably put out a couple of redirects for the alternate titles. 23skidoo 13:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anybody else for/against this? Bueller? --khaosworks 16:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should put the question to the WikiProject discussion page, too. 23skidoo 16:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should consider how we would refer to the movie from other articles and what would be the easiest, and avoids piping. Doctor Who: The Movie or The Doctor Who television movie, are good candidates. Doctor Who (something in brackets) would be rather annoying to use as it would always require piping. --TimPope 17:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, though I hesitate to generically give it a Doctor Who television movie without a date as it means if there's another television movie it'll have to be disambiguated and shifted again. The way it's written in the articles so far, 1996 Doctor Who television movie sounds a bit too unweildy somehow. --khaosworks 22:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, in fact there are already two telemovies, the McGann one and The Five Doctors. Not sure what to call this one. --TimPope 19:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still leaning towards Doctor Who (Enemy Within) at the end of the day. --khaosworks 05:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that not having brackets would be difficult so I'd agree with khaosworks on this one. --bjwebb 13:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless there's any major objection, I'll move the article to Doctor Who (Enemy Within) in 24 hours or so. Then we can begin the task of the (shudder) redirect fixing. --khaosworks 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I still think movie or telemovie needs to come into it, if it has to move at all. --TimPope 28 June 2005 07:15 (UTC)

How about Doctor Who Movie (Enemy Within? --bjwebb 28 June 2005 15:21 (UTC)

Doctor Who (1996 television movie)? --khaosworks June 28, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I remove my objection to Doctor Who (Enemy Within), mainly so we don't get deadlocked on the issue and three people have come out in favour of it and I don't want to be the blocker :) --TimPope 28 June 2005 17:19 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'll move it now. --khaosworks June 28, 2005 17:25 (UTC)

To make matters even more confusing, I just watched the online documentary Planet of the Doctor produced by the CBC in Canada to promote the new series. According to a spokesperson for the Doctor Who Information Network, the film is also known by the title Out of the Ashes, though to be honest that's the first I've heard of this title. I added it to the introduction since the title seems to come from a semi-authoritative source. The video in question can be viewed here (click on "Special: The Nine Doctors"). 23skidoo 03:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is an error, based on a misreading of A Brief History of Time (Travel). Shannon has a penchant for adding his own subtitles to the various seasons, and he chose that to denote the Eighth Doctor's. In all my readings, I have never come across "Out of the Ashes" in a context outside of Shannon's website as referring to the 1996 movie. Being a member of the DWIN doesn't make you any more authoritative as... well, as being an editor of these articles. --khaosworks 04:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I think it should be acknowledged -- even as an error -- since it has now been included in a documentary and Planet of the Doctor looks like something that may well turn up on the Canadian DVD release of the series. 23skidoo 05:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain if it's all that notable (the claim, not the documentary), but if you want to re-add it in the Notes section, do attribute the claim not to Planet of the Doctor but to this DWIN spokesperson. --khaosworks 05:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jacobs

Jacobs claims that all of these elements were added at the insistence of network executives of the Fox Network.

Who is Jacobs? He/she is only mentioned once in the article and it is never explained who he/she is. AlistairMcMillan 20:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Jacobs, the author. Timrollpickering 20:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Found it in the page history. Added a quick mention to the beginning of the article. AlistairMcMillan 20:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Side box

I removed the side box because the cast and crew list link at the bottom of all the episode synopses serves the same purpose. In the various synopses I have done, I have not made use of the side box at all, and my current take is that for consistency (not to mention that aesthetically the box is unpleasing), the format should remain as it is. I thought that this was agreed on some time ago (I think there was a discussion on Talk:List of Doctor Who serials), but if things have changed or should change, let's talk about it. --khaosworks 22:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notes.

Just added the little note about the doctors book.

How come an X-Ray showed hearts?

I don't understand the question. Your heart will show up on any X-ray taken of your chest. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixing redirects

To help people doing this, this link will show what is left to be done. [2] --khaosworks June 28, 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Does Grace kill the Doctor?

Is it correct to say that "Grace technically "kills" the Seventh Doctor on the operating table, triggering his (delayed) regeneration". Isn't it arguable that his regeneration would have been required anyway due to his being riddled with machine gun fire? Grace's only fault was that she was unable to save him. User:DavidFarmbrough 29 Jun 2005 09:00 BST

It's a matter of interpretation. She certainly believes that her operation would have been successful if not for the fact that she "got lost", and the Doctor was certainly well enough to leap up from the operating table (and coherent enough to warn Grace that he was not human) enough times to be resedated, so the circumstances seem to suggest that he would have survived if not for the bad anatomy. --khaosworks June 29, 2005 08:08 (UTC)

The gunshots don't kill the Doctor. It is clearly stated that those injuries are minor. The only reason for the operation to is to check out and correct an apparent heart defect that showed up on the X-Ray as two hearts. In trying to explore, it is clear that Grace does something that causes the Doctor to die -- watch the scene and you'll see she pushes the probe and the Doctor screams and that's all he wrote. So although it's clearly unintentional, and under the circumstances might not even be considered "malpractice" (or maybe it might), there's little doubt in my mind that the 7th Doctor would have survived if not for Grace's immediate actions. The rewording as it stands now, is fine. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

If, as Khaosworks says, it's a matter of interpretation, then we need to reflect that in the article. I have only watched the movie about seven times, so perhaps I need to watch it an eleventh to refresh my memory of this incident.User:DavidFarmbrough 30 Jun 2005 08:00 BST

Apparently the only place he's been shot is in the shoulder and the leg. And he's in perfectly stable condition until they jam the probe into his artery.

Earth - sources?

This is in response to edits by Khaosworks. I think we need to cite at least a couple of stories in which the Doctor implies that Earth may be his ancestral home, etc. I'm not denying there aren't any but I've been watching the show for 20 years, all eras, and I can't think of one other than the TV movie -- and even then "human" in the Doctor Who universe does not mean "Earthling" necessarily. (On a related note, the uncertainty regarding Susan being the Doctor's granddaughter stems from the fact that she is never referred to as a Time Lord, although she is familiar with Gallifrey as evidenced in The Five Doctors. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

I was debating whether to go into it, because it really is a matter of interpretation, and it can get complicated. In The Ice Warriors he cryptically says, "What do you mean, 'I'm only human?!' Well, as a matter of fact..." and in The Evil of the Daleks the Daleks identify him as "more than human." In Planet of the Spiders when the TARDIS brings him back to Earth he says, "TARDIS brought me home..." and in Survival, when the Cheetah planet transports everyone back to their home worlds, the Doctor goes back to Earth. Let's see if we can phrase is in a NPOV way. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 04:31 (UTC)

rebuttals of criticisms

Continuity should always be sacrificed if it makes a better story has been removed as being POV. It wasn't put in as my opinion, but as a commonly held belief, and oft cited rebuttal not just to continuity cock-ups in the movie, but also in much of Doctor Who. User:DavidFarmbrough 08:10 BST 30 June 2005

It's still POV, though. There are plenty of people who don't believe it. Ultimately, it's a cop-out catch-all excuse, not a rebuttal, and the section really is about specific rebuttals to concerns. We're already treading close to it when we suggest that regeneration has never been consistent. --khaosworks June 30, 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Article image

I'm not fond of the current article image. You can't see faces and it doesn't mean a lot by itself. Surely there must be a better piece of art available, preferably one of the publicity shots of Paul McGann and Daphne Ashbrook? 23skidoo 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That darned half-human line again

It's been a while since I read it, but where in Adventuress of Henrietta Street does Miles say that the half-human business came from one John Smith's DNA? I don't remember that, but then Adventuress is so dense it's entirely possible that I missed it. I do remember Unnatural History suggesting that the half-human business came from the Doctor's timelines being altered, and that only the Eighth (and possibly the Seventh) Doctor was half-human. And I remember various people suggesting that any human DNA might be left over from the Seventh Doctor's transformation in Human Nature — was that what Miles was alluding to? If so, we should probably cite Human Nature specifically. What a mess. —Josiah Rowe 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How did that sneak in? I don't think Mad Larry was ever that explicit. I'll change that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

NP Chilla put it in. I assumed he had some reason for doing so. Here's his version, in case he (or someone else) wants to work it back in (if it is accurate, of course).

The Eighth Doctor Adventures novel The Adventuress of Henrietta Street claims that it was due to left-over DNA from a human called John Smith that led to the confusion, and that the Doctor is not half-human with regard to his parentage.)

—Josiah Rowe 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the line in the movie where he says he's half-human on his mother's side? Unless you assert that he's joking, Miles's version can't be right. Jsteph 07:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My point was that I don't think that Miles ever made that claim, so it's not really "Miles' version". My understanding of the Unnatural History view was that the Doctor's past, origins and parentage had been, or were being, rewritten (possibly by Faction Paradox, although I don't think Unnatural History makes that explicit). So when the Eighth Doctor made that claim, it was true for him; but it might not have been true for earlier — or possibly later — Doctors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

S vs Z? (spelling trivia)

There was another instance of the "z" (i.e., American) spelling of "materialise," which I changed to the "s" version. However, since the TV movie was an American co-production, and since so much fan comment has labeled it the "American" version of Who, I'm curious: could the "z" spelling be justified? --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Have I got this straight?

This story was never called "Enemy Within" on-screen.
It was never called "Enemy Within" in any official paperwork.
The DVD release isn't called "Enemy Within".
There was no novelisation called "Enemy Within".

Basically, the only source for "Enemy Within" is an offhanded remark by the producer. It's not even commonly used in fandom AFAICS, with "the TVM" (for "the TV Movie", or occasionally "the FOX TV movie with the Pertwee logo" in... certain sections).

So why is the page at "Doctor Who (Enemy Within)" again? - SoM 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Because that was how the consensus above seemed to pan out - it seemed the least ambiguous for our purposes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not terribly keen on opening this can of worms again, but I do think that Doctor Who (1996) or Doctor Who (1996 television movie) would be more accurate than Doctor Who (Enemy Within). It has to be piped in either case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this one this time - I'll go with whatever the others want, as long as I don't have to fix all the redirects. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Doctor Who (1996) seeming the most sensible option. Enemy Within is just plain inaccurate. Angmering 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I'd go for Doctor Who: The Movie (the DVD title), but Doctor Who (1996) or Doctor Who (1996 TV movie) would be better too. Either way, the current title makes no sense IMO. - SoM 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that this issue isn't that important. The controversy is clearly stated in the opening paragraphs. I personally think that it should really follow the DVD release's title, but as there should be universal policy for these things, it could get messy with Unearthly Child/100,000BC etc.. --Jamdav86 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider the part in brackets in be dismbiguations from Doctor Who (its on-screen title), a job it does fine as it is. That said, if there is to be a change (which I don't think necessary), I would prefer Doctor Who (1996). --Whouk (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO Doctor Who (1996) would be the best option.--βjweþþ (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is made quite clear during the first paragraph of this article that the film has never been called "Enemy Within", and that only Mr. Segal has ever called it this in a single throwaway comment. Personally, I'm more than happy to see it called "Doctor Who: The Movie", or even "Doctor Who (1996)" (although it is slightly trickier to type... well, for me, anyway); but the moniker of "Doctor Who (Enemy Within)" just makes very little sense, especially to someone less familiar with the show who may be confused by the "Enemy Within" part. - NP Chilla (talk) 17:47, 8 January (GMT)

I suspect Doctor Who (1996) is the title least likely to cause problems in the future. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving

Can an admin please move it then? (Doctor Who (1996) is a redirect that's been edited before), or do we have to go through a whole WP:RM thing after we've already had a discussion with a clear consensus? - SoM 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll move it to Doctor Who (1996), forthwith. Now begins the redirect fixing... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. (the move, not the redirect fixing) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd help with the redirects, but I've got to do some errands IRL right now. If there are any left by the time I get back I'll chip in. (Feeling a bit guilty for encouraging the move, now, since K. said he didn't want to handle the redirects, and he's doing it anyway...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I started off fixing a couple, and the rampage of the other editors has started. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, and bless the AWB. :) - SoM 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I've been active here for months and I never knew about that program! I don't suppose there's a Macintosh version, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, since it's heavily tied into the Internet Explorer core (a pity, since I use Firefox myself). If you wanted a Mac version, you'd have to basically start from scratch (probably tying into the AppleWebKit/Safari) - SoM 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the man for that. I get flustered by simple HTML, and run from anything resembling programming. (Heck, I originally got a Mac because I was scared of the DOS prompt!) :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the poster

Where did the poster come from? Seeing as this was a made-for-TV film, not a theatrical release, I find it unusual a poster was produced for it, and I've certainly never seen it elsewhere. Are we certain it isn't a fan-made poster? The image page offers no information and the lack of any text other than the title would seem to suggest this was a fan production. The Wikirights police are really cracking down on unsourced images these days (and the image source tags are no longer sufficient on their own, it seems) so it might be speedied if it's not a verifiable Fox or BBC promotional item. There isn't even a logo on it to tell which. 23skidoo 18:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The poster is a Fox promotional item, sent to TV stations for their own promotional purposes, usually for newspaper or TV Guide advertisements - I found it in my archives recently from the time I worked at Fox, back when the movie aired. This is NOT a fan-produced item. The lack of identifying marks comes from the fact that this image was designed to be modified by the individual stations. It was not downloaded from anywhere - I scanned it myself from the original this morning. TheRealFennShysa 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand happily corrected. :-) 23skidoo 19:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd be smart to put that explanation on the image summary page itself, BTW, since if you don't it's 50/50 that someone will slap a {{no source}} tag on it some time in the nearish future and get it deleted. - SoM 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Running time

There appears to be a discrepancy between the UK and US running times. TheRealFennShysa (talk · contribs) times it as 89 minutes off his Beta tape, but I just stuck in the DVD and it clocks, from start to finish (including credits) as 85' 47". The Television Companion (and from there, A Brief History of Time Travel) plonks for 84" 37'. IMDB lists 85 mins for the UK time, 95 mins for the US time, but IMDB isn't the most reliable of sources. I know the UK version had some bits censored, but a 4 minute discrepancy? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. A closer reading of Shannon's Brief History site shows the reason - according to that, about 2 minutes worth of cuts were done to the UK DVD version to get it to a 12 certificate:

"In order to obtain the 12 certificate desired by BBC Video, about two minutes worth of edits had to be made, and this delayed the video release until May 22nd, even closer to the broadcast date. The first scene to be trimmed was the one set in the alley where the TARDIS lands, with cuts including Chang Lee's gang firing at the departing car; Chang Lee's two friends being shot while Chang Lee himself avoids the hail of bullets (consequently, in the edited version the fate of Chang Lee's friends is never shown, although one of their bodies is later visible before Chang lee checks on the Doctor); the third and fourth gunmen aiming at Lee; the gunmen firing at the newly-materialised TARDIS (in the edited version, the arrival of the TARDIS is preceded by a reaction shot of the gunmen taken from the excised material). The other main victim of the BBFC's scissor was the operating scene, and the music had to be rearranged as a result. Drastic cuts were made to Grace's attempts to retrieve the probe and the efforts to revive the Doctor; gone completely are Grace mentioning that the probe is still stuck in the Doctor's body and the Doctor's final scream. Also edited out were the close-up shot of the Master twisting Chang Lee's head, and the sound effect of Bruce's wife's neck snapping (although not the sequence itself). The British version also removed an opening title caption stating that the movie was "based on the original series broadcast by the BBC". The end of the telefilm was followed by a dedication to Jon Pertwee, who had played the Third Doctor and who had passed away on May 20th; this was suggested to Alan Yentob by both Segal and Kevin Davies, director of the Doctor Who documentary Thirty Years In The TARDIS. (The BAFTA version of the telefilm included the same edits to the alley and operating scenes as the broadcast version, as well as the omission of the "based on" caption. Bizarrely, though, it also included a small amount of extra material, consisted of additional points of view of the Doctor kicking the surgical tools off the table.)"

Someone should condense this down to a note; I'll do it myself later if nobody has by then. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Something else that might account for the extra couple of minutes: When TNG went on home video in the UK for the first time, there was a big deal made about the fact that, due to the differences between PAL and NTSC, the UK version had a higher frame rate. This means the show was slightly sped up and therefore had a shorter running time. Something similar might have happened with regards to the DVD version of the movie. 23skidoo 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd originally tried to post that, but the comments got caught in some network errors... but yes, we may be seeing an artifact of the conversion from NTSC to PAL - the film was shot for an American television network, so it's conceivable that instead of telcining the film properly, they ran it at 25fps for the PAL transfer, instead of the standard 24fps for American film. Over the runtime of the film, this could account for the loss of time, but not content. As to the broadcast master I have (in case the question comes up), this was not handed down to me - this is something I have had in my possession ever since the first airing, when I edited down a version for personal use, minus commericals... TheRealFennShysa 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I still remember reading all the complaints about TNG's characters sounding like Mickey Mouse and all that because of the speed up. When I visited the UK 1991 I actually saw an episode of TNG -- apparently the speed up was allegedly noticed on broadcast versions, too, not just video -- and I couldn't tell the difference, personally. 23skidoo 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the bottom line is that either one, or both, may account for the differences in running time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No-one think to look up http://www.restoration-team.co.uk ? See attached (from [3]) - SoM 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The TV Movie has been seen around the world in a number of slightly different versions, including two variants shown by the BBC. The edited BBC version lost some violent content in order to make it suitable for a pre-watershed transmission slot in 1996 and this was also the version released on VHS by BBC Video. The full uncut BBC version to be released on this DVD is essentially the same in content as the version transmitted by Fox in the US and transmitted by BBC2 as part of 'Doctor Who Night' in November 1999.

The movie was shot on 35mm film at 24fps and then the negatives were transferred to 30fps, 525-line videotape using the normal '3:2 pulldown' technique which inserts twelve repeated video fields per second (two fields equals one video frame) in order to bridge the gap between the two standards. This give a characteristic slight stuttering effect on motion, particularly noticeable on camera pans. The show was edited on video from these neg transfers, so the final movie only exists as a 30fps video master - there is no complete physical film print. In 1996, the movie was initially delivered to BBC Worldwide as a normal video standards conversion from the US video master. As well as retaining 3:2 pulldown artefacts, this also showed the normal problems associated with video standards conversion, such as motion blur and judder. On advice from the Restoration Team, BBC Video producer Sue Kerr asked for a DEFT conversion to be supplied instead, and it is this conversion that forms the basis for all of the released and screened BBC versions.

DEFT (Digital Electronic Film Transfer) is a special standards conversion process that can only be used with material originated on 24fps film which has been telecined with 3:2 pulldown to 30fps video. Essentially, the process works by analysing each shot and working out which are the repeated fields inserted by the 3:2 pulldown process. It then removes these fields, effectively giving 24fps video. The 525-line video frame is then interpolated up to 625 lines and recorded on a specially modified VTR running at 24fps. The tape this VTR produces is completely standard when played back in a 25fps, 625-line VTR. The 3:2 pulldown artefacts have been removed and each video frame comes from just one film frame of the original negative. Because of the speed-up from 24fps to 25fps, the running time of the DEFT conversion is 4% shorter than the original US video master, just as it would be if a 24fps feature film was transferred to tape at 25fps, as is the standard practice.

Thanks, SoM - that clears it up a great deal. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Novelisation edit

I support Josiah's reverting of the novelisation comments. I take issue with the POV statement "the novelisation was so popular it's considered canon". There's no way to prove that and I've never encountered any statements to that effect. In fact I've never encountered the novelisation, period, since the BBC failed to obtain an international distributor for the book (I know from experience, trying for about 6 months to get anyone to bring it into Canada in those pre-Amazon days). 23skidoo 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Eartha Kitt

Are you certain it wasn't Eartha Kitt? I clearly recall seeing a close-up of the label of the record. I also recognized the song (though I can't remember the title of it). I've also seen it mentioned elsewhere with regards to Eartha (I think on a Kitt fanpage or something like that). 23skidoo 03:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, from http://www.millenniumeffect.co.uk/audio/stock.html —

"The BBC DVD of the 1996 Fox TV Movie included three stock music tracks featured in the film as bonus material. All licensed from Mar-Tune Music (ASCAP), these uncopyrighted songs had frustrated many fans determined to obtain copies for themselves, particularly In a Dream, the song playing on the TARDIS gramophone in the opening and closing scenes. Executive Producer Philip Segal had been quoted as announcing at a convention that the song was a Billie Holiday cover, sending many on a fruitless chase until the tracks true nature - a stock piece performed by Pat Hodge - was revealed in the books Regeneration and The Pocket Essential Doctor Who (both published 2000). The DVD also included an isolated soundtrack formed from the original music-only and music/effects tracks, including music dubbed out of the finished programme." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just dug up Regeneration by Gary Russell and Philip Segal, which has the full music details. The song, "In A Dream", was written by Barbara L. Jordan, Pete Peterkin and Christopher Rhyne, and (as Khaosworks' source says) performed by Pat Hodge. At least, that's the version played in the TV movie. Eartha Kitt may also have recorded the same song, which might be the source of your confusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Daleks note

The Doctor's most famous alien adversaries, the Daleks, are not seen in the film; but they are heard condemning the Master to death during the film's opening sequence (sporting their trademark warcry of: "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!"). This show trial may be due to the Master being an erstwhile ally of the Daleks who had betrayed them – events seen in the Third Doctor serial Frontier in Space. The Daleks' 'appearance' and role here has proven to be controversial amongst fans for a number of reasons, ranging from the arguably trivial (the DWAS said that their voices were "too squeaky") to the claim that it was uncharacteristic of the Doctor to run an errand for his mortal enemies – though his assertion in the opening narration that "they" should "never have granted" the Master's last wish quite possibly refers to the Time Lords being prepared to accept the Masters remains, rather than the Daleks willingly giving them to the Doctor, suggesting that it is his own people for whom the Doctor is acting as an agent, as on numerous previous occasions in the series.

He isn't running an errand for his enemies, surely? He's fulfilling the Master's last request for the Time Lords. It might be uncharacteristic of the Daleks to let him go... But then if this accusation has been levelled, perhaps it should stay in...? —Whouk (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone might (or might not) do to mention that Russel T. Davies has, in the most recent annual, "retconned" an explanation for this whole scenario, connecting it to the "Time War" plot thread in the new series. The reasoning he gives there is that the Time Lords throw the Master to the Daleks as a sort of a bone, in attempt to appease them for a while and put off out-and-out war. I'm sure someone here can give more specific information than I. Of course, the annual is not necessarily "canon" -- though as it's written by Russel T. Davies, and other such information (likt the Monsters and Villains material) has worked its way into the new series, it seems about as official as you get without actually being detailed in a televised episode. --Aderack 16:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in Note 9. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. --Aderack 01:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Vortex Energy" or whatever that is

Would it behoove to make some reference to how utterly bizarre people generally considered the movie's ending, up until the new series went to some length to explain it over its last three episodes? --Aderack 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The new television series really didn't explain it as such - fans latched onto the heart of the TARDIS reversing Margaret's timeline idea to try and explain the resurrection of Grace and Chang Lee using pixie dust, but the two are really quite different and you have to read a lot into it (for example, the movie makes no mention of vortex energy). I don't think "generally" people found the ending of the TVM "bizarre", myself. They just thought it was cheesy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that old-school fans found the movie's ending more bizarre than people who came to it fresh, without prior knowledge of Doctor Who. The whole Eye of Harmony/temporal orbit business was so poorly defined in the script that a new viewer could just read the resurrections as standard operating procedure for the TARDIS. The longtime fans were more likely to point out the logical flaws in the TARDIS being able to bring back the dead. (That said, I agree that the cheesiness was at least as big a problem as the muddy plot.)

I suppose we could have a note saying that some fans have suggested that the twinkly lights which come out of the Eye of Harmony and bring Grace and Chang Lee back to life, with the "heart of the TARDIS" energy in Boom Town and the vortex energy in Parting of the Ways, but it's a bit speculative. I'd be more comfortable with making the connection if it's mentioned in a published source — do any of the reviewers in Back to the Vortex make the connection? (I'm on the road now and can't check.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that I recall (I'm in the office, but can look it up when I get back). But in the end it's just speculation, sourced or not it may not pass the notability taste test. Now, what could be notable is a mention that some controversy arose over the resurrection among fans because the TARDIS had never shown such abilities before. Or something like that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean you didn't buy two copies so you could keep one at work? Shocking. Anyway, I always thought the new series explanation put forward for this by some fans was that the pixie dust was made up of TARDIS nano-genes... Angmering 06:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read just as many people opine that the reversibility of time was the thing and the pixie dust from the Heart of the TARDIS (Eye of Harmony closes after Grace and Chang Lee are revived). It's just too vague one way or another to be actually notable, to my mind, unless you just want to say "various theories, some involving blah blah blah have been advanced." I, of course have my own theory, but that's neither here nor there. --07:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Doctor/Grace say some guff about alarm clocks and suggest that time has been turned back? It's a load of old boots regardless... —Whouk (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes - the entire point was that the Eye of Harmony had been opened too long and the only way to prevent the destruction of Earth was to travel back in time before the Eye was opened and close it. Bunch of old cobblers, yes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well. The thing is -- simply on a literary level, it's clear where Russel T. Davies got the ideas for the new series. Conceptually (and visually, in Parting of the Ways), there are just too many similarities to overlook -- especially given that the TARDIS has never exhibited phenomena like this elsewhere in the previous twenty-six seasons. I mean, it's a weird thing to happen even once.

And that's why I think it bears some mentioning: it's a freaking weird thing to happen, historically. There's no apparent explanation, no precedent. Then the new series comes around, and the TARDIS does something along the same general lines twice more within the span of three episodes. Again, at least on a literary level it's hardly speculative to say that there's a connection between the two: X leads to Y, creatively. It stretches the imagination more to think that the new series events weren't inspired in at least some manner by the TVM, especially given all the other TVM references throughout the new series (the "cloaking device" thing, the "half-human"/"blasphemy" thing, the "kissing complete strangers" deal, and so on) -- all of which, you'll note, are in Russel T. Davies' episodes (including Boom Town and Parting of the Ways).

Though it might be a stretch to say that, within the Doctor Who universe, these are all instances of the same principle forces or whatever (since it has never been stated directly), if you frame the parallel as just that -- a clear conceptual similarity, though the precise fictional relationship is unclear -- I don't see any problem. And again, within the context of the series it just seems too bizarre not to bring up. Especially given that the events in the new series, at least superficially, seem to clear up an issue that is otherwise left unexplained in the TVM. From the perspective of the TVM, which frankly makes no sense, I should think a note saying "this over here might or not explain what just happened" would be of some benefit.

Just as a note, one of the docuementaries on "The Beginning" box set takes far more liberty in connecting the "heart of the TARDIS" and its abilities to the events in Edge of Destruction, the only links there being the "heart" term and the psychic bond the TARDIS seems to have with its occupants. Again it's basically just working on a literary level, where the conceptual connection is obvious. And yet again, that's kind of a stretch compared to the connection between the TVM and the new series -- which might as well have blinking lights all over it. (Oh wait; it does!)

To point out a probable (if unclear) connection of this sort is an act of observation; not speculation or opinion. It's akin to pointing out that the Doctor kissed his companion in the movie, then again in the new series (repeatedly, it seems). Or to note that, outside of extenuating circumstances, the Doctor tends to regenerate into a younger form, and that this is at least consistent with the original concept of renewal (though it might just be a coincidence of casting). The only difference here is that recent events might shed some more light (if just an intellectual sort) on a weird plot detail that, in its original context, seems to come out of nowhere. So in this case the observation is less of a curiosity and more of a direct aid to understanding. I would think it, therefore, more relevant and constructive than a good deal of other information on the page. --Aderack 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is something to be said, perhaps, for a brief note or section on how the TVM appears to be influenced RTD's conception of the new series: as you say, the romance and the power of the TARDIS bit. In addition, one might see similarities in the design of the TVM console room and the new one as well. RTD did show some affection for the TVM in A New Dimension and commented that there were a lot of things in it that were quintessential Doctor Who. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Canonicity

The article goes to great length to explain why fans think the film isn't a part of canon, but it doesn't actually say anywhere that it is canon. Shouldn't there be a line in the "Controversy" section to the effect of, "Despite the fact that the BBC regard the TVM as canon--evidenced by the fact that they officially call the Eccleston Doctor the 'Ninth Doctor'--the production sparked immediate controversy in the fan community, which is still actively discussed today?" CzechOut 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it was never said because it's just so blindingly obvious that is is. Stil... I've added a sentence. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is blindingly obvious--to long term fans of the show. I was thinking of those fans brought into the DW universe solely though the 2005 series, who might have found their way to the page without really absorbing its canonicity from other pages in the DW wiki. Thanks for the addition :) CzechOut 14:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I also added a little bit referencing the short BBC 40th anniversary video that was included on a few DVDs (I know Talons of Weng-Chiang for certain). I was actually very pleasantly surprised to see McGann's Doctor incldued. 23skidoo 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He was also included in the Doctor line-up in Doctor Who: A New Dimension which was shown immediately prior to Rose, although I'm not sure if anyone outside of the UK saw it on television. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed several topics pop up since the new series started airing on Sci-Fi, asking if the TV Movie is canon. Several people mistakenly assume everyone is talking about the Peter Cushing movies. Someone mentions that that's just an alternate First Doctor, and someone else yells at him. Then half of the posters go on to speculate on how not only is this not the Ninth Doctor; maybe he isn't the Doctor at all!

So I guess there is some value in clarity. --Aderack 01:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The articial is overall too long.

plot could be made smaller it currently gives too much detail
38 notes is far too many i'd suggest merging some and removing others

(Gnevin 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

The plot is no longer than in any of the other story articles, which consensus has more or less accepted can be that long. The length of the article really isn't a cleanup issue - Wikipedia is not paper. Cleanup is meant for writing, style, wikilinking, etc. to bring the content up to standard, not to cut it down. --15:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gnevin may have a point about the notes, however. Should we consider reorganizing some of them into one or two prose sections — perhaps "Production" for one? (Since the TV movie is a special case, I think it's OK to bend the format a bit.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, we've been flexible in articles about note sections before. You're probably right and it could do with a little reorg if possible. Let's take a stab at it over the next few days. I'll look it it when I have a more substantial block of time to spare. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Credits order

I've just popped in my DVD of the TVM, and, in order, the opening credits lists Paul McGann, Eric Roberts, Daphne Ashbrook, Sylvester McCoy, Yee Jee Tso, John Novak, Michael David Simms. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Casting

I've restored the casting info, in its own subsection. I think it's interesting, and I've provided another source: Regenerations by Philip Segal and Gary Russell. This was almost certainly the source for Shannon Patrick Sullivan's page — which, incidentally, is rather more reliable than any old fan site, but I suppose that's moot now that I've cited the book.

I'm a little bit concerned that the long list of names is unencyclopedic, even though I think it's fascinating how wide a net the producers originally threw. I also don't know whether we should note that most of the Doctors from The Curse of Fatal Death were on the list or not. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there was a wide net cast is notable: but a laundry list surely isn't? Interesting it may be, but is it actually useful or should we have a short note that points to Sullivan's page instead? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's of some interest, but it's just too many. Pare it down to those who actually auditioned, or were asked to audition. "Considered" is just too wide. --KJBracey 13:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.