Talk:List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. | |||
|
||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Stephen Fry
This article is well-sourced, except for the one statement about why Fry didn't complete his script. This needs a source. 23skidoo 23:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did look for one on the BBC DW & news websites, but couldn't find it. There was one in List of Doctor Who serials a while back; I'll grovel through the history and see if I can pick it out. Percy Snoodle 11:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, it was on Outpost Gallifrey - that was why I didn't find it. Added. The bit about it being lack of time 'for rewriting' comes from the BHOTT ref - should I repeat that reference? Percy Snoodle 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It probably wouldn't hurt, since this is a new article and new articles are getting some pretty heavy scrutiny these days for sources. 23skidoo 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, done. Thanks. Percy Snoodle 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It probably wouldn't hurt, since this is a new article and new articles are getting some pretty heavy scrutiny these days for sources. 23skidoo 14:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it was on Outpost Gallifrey - that was why I didn't find it. Added. The bit about it being lack of time 'for rewriting' comes from the BHOTT ref - should I repeat that reference? Percy Snoodle 11:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen
I remember hearing about this one, but we should have a source for it as well since it appears to be the only unsourced item left on the list. 23skidoo 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tricky - google's not helping me much here; there's just a lot of people saying "everyone knows that..." but no-one actually giving any sources. IIRC it was mentioned in passing in the Scratchman article in DWM, so that might do for one. Percy Snoodle 12:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps tellingly, Jean-Marc Lofficier's book The Nth Doctor (which I'll be plundering in due course to add information about planned but ultimately unmade Doctor Who films) seems to make no reference to Krikkitmen. 23skidoo 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. According to this usenet post the plot is outlined in a book called "Don't Panic" - presumably the Neil Gaiman book. I may have to skim it next time I'm in town to find a page number :-) Percy Snoodle 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool. Something else I need to track down is a source regarding the fact a third Peter Cushing movie was supposed to be made based upon The Chase. It's worth noting here, too. 23skidoo 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- And done. I also found info about a planned American Daleks-based TV series featuring Sara Kingdom, too. 23skidoo 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool. Something else I need to track down is a source regarding the fact a third Peter Cushing movie was supposed to be made based upon The Chase. It's worth noting here, too. 23skidoo 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Dark Dimension
Should this be under the Fourth Doctor? Percy Snoodle 11:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it shouldn't be under any particular Doctor, given it doesn't really come under any of their 'eras', as such, although of course the Fourth Doctor was supposed to be the focus of the script. Angmering 12:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Although it would have been an alternate universe Fourth Doctor story, it would have been produced long afterwards. If anything it would more correctly be a Seventh Doctor story, much like The Five Doctors is considered a Fifth Doctor story, etc. A case has been made that the non-canonical Dimensions in Time should be considered a Seventh Doctor story because there's some dialogue that suggests all the previous Doctors and companionss shown were actually the Seventh Doctor and Ace under some sort of illusion field or something ... how anyone could make enough sense out of the script to come to that conjecture (or any conjecture) is beyond me. 23skidoo 13:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Incomplete list marker and custom TOC?
I've been looking at the featured list criteria to get an idea of how this article should be improved. I think it falls down in two places: "comprehensiveness" and "not overwhelming table of contents". The BHOTT site lists a huge number of unmade serials that probably don't belong in this article because there's really nothing to say about them; so perhaps we should mark this page as an incomplete list. The TOC at the moment is huge - so perhaps we should consider a custom TOC restricted to the main headings. What do people think? Percy Snoodle 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Picking and choosing what serials to list is a POV judgement call and I don't support it. There should be criteria so someone doesn't start adding fanfic or "stories I submitted to the BBC"-type things, of course. But if the serials are mentioned in a non-trivial source as being considered (and thus far all the ones I've seen have been), then they should be included, even if we have no information beyond the title. I do not pay attention to the FA guidelines because they change every week; I went through a very stressful situation with an FA article (Thunderball) that another editor spent a lot of time getting up to FA standards of the time, only to be humiliated when the standards changed and it was stripped of its FA status (and split into several articles, to boot). Personally I don't want to have anything to do with FA anymore. I don't think the TOC as it currently stands is unreasonable; I've seen far more complex TOCs used. There is also a bit of coding that suppresses TOCs altogether if you don't like having the table. 23skidoo 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree that we need criteria, not whimsy, to determine what goes in; if we care about comprehesiveness, we need to be comprehensive within those criteria, or else we would have to include "stories I submitted". My approach at first was only to list the green- or blue-labelled episodes from BHOTT; others have since listed ones which were novelised or given an article in DWM. Perhaps we should put "seriously considered" into the lead sentence? As for the TOC, I think having no TOC would be worse than a long one; but perhaps one like the one on List of Doctor Who serials wpuld be better still. Sorry to hear about your woes with the FA process. Percy Snoodle 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I thought about that chart, too, except it might encourage people to create articles for each of the proposed stories, and I think we should try to discourage that (with the obvious exception of the ones that have been adapted as books; an article on Masters of Luxor could also be justified since it's been published as well. I think the criteria should establish that the stories listed have either been commissioned or invited by the BBC, officially submitted to the BBC by recognized professional writers, proposed by people directly connected with the series (i.e. Tom Baker's Scratchman), or otherwise been cited in non-trivial sources. In theory that should discourage the "fanfic" element, or someone claiming that back in 1975 when he was 15 he mailed in a script to the DW Production Office but never heard anything back. I suggest the "submitted by recognized professional writers" criteria because if some well-known writer makes the claim to have written a Doctor Who script that was rejected, I think this is notable enough to be mentioned, assuming it can be sourced and verified, etc. For example, Harlan Ellison was a huge fan of DW and is credited with helping to promote it within the SF fan community in the 1970s. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that somewhere in the BBC archives is a script or story treatment submission from Ellison; if Ellison were to state this in an article or autobiography, then it would be worth adding to the list, even if the BBC never actually commissioned it nor invited Ellison to write it. 23skidoo 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, good idea. I've added a sentence on the article's scope which includes those categories of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
- We shouldn't just restrict it to DWM, though, since there have been books and other professional (i.e. non-zine) articles on the topic as well. For example, when I have time I intend to add additional unproduced stories as cited by Jean-Marc Lofficier in his book The Nth Doctor. I'll make that change, otherwise the intro looks good. 23skidoo 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, good idea. I've added a sentence on the article's scope which includes those categories of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
- I thought about that chart, too, except it might encourage people to create articles for each of the proposed stories, and I think we should try to discourage that (with the obvious exception of the ones that have been adapted as books; an article on Masters of Luxor could also be justified since it's been published as well. I think the criteria should establish that the stories listed have either been commissioned or invited by the BBC, officially submitted to the BBC by recognized professional writers, proposed by people directly connected with the series (i.e. Tom Baker's Scratchman), or otherwise been cited in non-trivial sources. In theory that should discourage the "fanfic" element, or someone claiming that back in 1975 when he was 15 he mailed in a script to the DW Production Office but never heard anything back. I suggest the "submitted by recognized professional writers" criteria because if some well-known writer makes the claim to have written a Doctor Who script that was rejected, I think this is notable enough to be mentioned, assuming it can be sourced and verified, etc. For example, Harlan Ellison was a huge fan of DW and is credited with helping to promote it within the SF fan community in the 1970s. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that somewhere in the BBC archives is a script or story treatment submission from Ellison; if Ellison were to state this in an article or autobiography, then it would be worth adding to the list, even if the BBC never actually commissioned it nor invited Ellison to write it. 23skidoo 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that we need criteria, not whimsy, to determine what goes in; if we care about comprehesiveness, we need to be comprehensive within those criteria, or else we would have to include "stories I submitted". My approach at first was only to list the green- or blue-labelled episodes from BHOTT; others have since listed ones which were novelised or given an article in DWM. Perhaps we should put "seriously considered" into the lead sentence? As for the TOC, I think having no TOC would be worse than a long one; but perhaps one like the one on List of Doctor Who serials wpuld be better still. Sorry to hear about your woes with the FA process. Percy Snoodle 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One last reference
Can we find the one last reference that Cartmel's story was going to be an animal testing one? Percy Snoodle 13:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Last of The Timelords
Hi. Before the 1996 TV movie was given the go ahead there was some talk in DWM of a Doctor Who feature film called 'The Last of the Timelords'. I think this was going to be by someone called Lighthouse productions (?) Does anyone know anything more about this as it would be very interesting, especially in light of the storyline of the new series. Thanks. Rob. ps. sorry I don't know anything about how to use wikipedia properly, but I enjoy reading the articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.137.27.164 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- I can't help you directly, but I suspect some information can be found in Philip Segal's book Regeneration which covers the period in question. You also might want to look into John Frank Rosenblum - I think he was associated with the production company you mention. Percy Snoodle 15:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third Yeti story?
Going by the CD liner notes for The Invasion (and I seem to recall this being picked up on another CD, but I don't have time to find it right now), I thought I remember reading that a final Yeti story, to make a trilogy, had been planned, and that's one reason Prof Travers and Anne were mentioned in The Invasion (which got stretched from 6 to 8 episodes). Can anyone else help? --JohnDBuell 14:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scratchman statement needs a source
The sentence in the Scratchman section about Tom Baker's attempts to secure funding for the film needs a source. I've marked it accordingly. 23skidoo 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The source is the same DWM article - I've updated the ref tags to show that. Percy Snoodle 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had a feeling that was the case, but I didn't want to make an assumption. 23skidoo 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shada statement
It's a commonly known fact that Shada is the only Doctor Who story to be abandoned after filming began. Unfortunately a major failing of Wikipedia is the fact that its "fact" requirements don't make this sort of thing easy to cite. if someone can prove me wrong, I'd love to see it. 23skidoo 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have a pretty large library of Doctor Who material and went hunting, plus I also checked all the major Doctor Who historical websites, cross-checking all the titles listed here (and searching for possible others to add). Based upon this (which i know skirts OR) Shada is unique in this regard, and so I have added a footnote. I don't see the point of listing all the works I checked because they simply contain no reference, so therefore would be useless to cite. The key is if anyone can find a Doctor Who reference work that contradicts the statement regarding Shada (and yes that is a challenge ;) ) , then feel free to remove the statement, though please include a citation here indicating which book says otherwise so anyone who tries to reinstate the statement can be directed to that source. 68.146.8.46 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- As it stands, I'm afraid that reference does count as OR. I don't suppose you could write it up elsewhere so we can link to it as an external reference? A bit daft, I know, but it would bring the article into line. Percy Snoodle 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I just realized that I must have been logged out when I posted the above; I didn't notice it had gone to the IP number, so that was me. Anyway, the fact remains that there is no other abandoned Doctor Who productions out there. None. I don't see the point of having to cite this since there are no other abandoned-after-filming-commencement Doctor Who episodes in existence. It's as silly as having to cite the fact that Doctor Who is a British TV show. If anyone can prove me wrong (at least up to the beginning of the 2008 season)) then not only will I stand corrected, I'll resign from Wikipedia outright. 23skidoo 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- As it stands, I'm afraid that reference does count as OR. I don't suppose you could write it up elsewhere so we can link to it as an external reference? A bit daft, I know, but it would bring the article into line. Percy Snoodle 10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yellow Fever and Peri
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Yellow Fever was originally going to be Peri's farewell story. Anyone have a source that might support this? 23skidoo 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reference & citation cleanup
Moo. What began as a fix for three citation bugs turned in a full-scale reference cleanup.
What kicked it all of of was the ibid template, which - as a "misplaced" ibid demonstrated - is really not a good idea: The ibid previously at ref #34 was ibid'ing Russell's Inside Story, instead of (what should have been) an ibid for Peel & Nation's The Official Doctor Who & the Daleks Book. -- Fullstop 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Brilliant, thanks! Percy Snoodle 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unmade or Unproduced for the title?
This might be splitting hairs, but I wonder if the word "unproduced" might be better for the title? Unmade refers to something like an unmade bed i.e. unkempt, plus all the examples listed were in fact "made" to some degree, either as story treatments or even full scripts and novelizations. Would anyone have an objection to moving this article to the namespace "List of unproduced Doctor Who serials and films"? This isn't really a WP:BOLD situation, so I'm willing to wait and see if there's consensus on this, or opposing arguments. 23skidoo (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. The only slight risk is that it may invite speculation about future episodes - ones that are as yet unproduced - but unmade is really just as bad in that regard. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- What about "proposed"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, forget that - that's even worse for promoting speculation. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about "proposed"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess my only concern is, technically, Shada does not belong under the current title because not only was it in fact partially produced initially, it was later completed not once but twice - as the Tom Baker-hosted video, and later as the webcast. 23skidoo (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that matters - the version of Shada that the page talks about wasn't finished, and some other stories were later reworked as stories that were finished (The Giants, Pompeii) Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Young Doctor Who
Are there any reliable sources that talk about this (ie, not tabloids such as The Daily Mirror) that don't reference the Daily Mirror's article. If not, it needs to be removed. \\Aeron\\talk 03:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- A user added a link to the External Links section, but there was something weird about the link. It leads to the Mirror website, but the URL seemed to be some sort of "masking" URL (i.e. every click on the page sent you back to youngdrwho.com). I have asked the user who posted the link if he/she could provide the URL. The Mirror is just as viable a source as anything else; to call it unreliable violates WP:NPOV and that's not our job here. If Davies has denied it in other media, that can be added as a rebuttal link. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dark Dimension "direct-to-TV"
Is this just a weird way of someone saying it was to be a television movie, or did they mean "direct to video"? I suspect the former but don't know for sure. Binabik80 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, they meant made-for-TV or telefilm or TV movie. Those terms aren't particularly widely used outside North America, so it might have been someone unfamiliar with the terminology. I'll fix it. 23skidoo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The McGann TV series
As indicated in numerous places, the 1996 film was a pilot for a new series that Fox decided not to make. I think we should acknowledge this with an Eighth Doctor section. Does "Regeneration" or any other reference books indicate whether any potential storylines or scripts had been created for the aborted McGann series? 23skidoo (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it does: The writers' bible inside includes eight or so ideas on stories they could rework for the new TV series. It's been a while since I read it, and I don't remember much about them, though I'm pretty sure one of them was "Tomb of the Cybs"[sic]. I'll see if I can borrow it again. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I should google first and post later. There's a summary of the bible at http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/serials/tvm.html Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. However, I've been noticing an upswing in people rejecting websites as reliable sources unless they're by the AP or a university or whatever (it's become a pet peeve of mine in AFD discussions), so if we can cite the actual book that will work a bit better. One reason I'm hesitant to add it just now even with the link you gave is it's so easy for someone to take FA status away from an article that for such a major addition I want to make sure the source is air-tight before adding it. 23skidoo (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'll try to get some page numbers for you sometime soon. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. There's quite a bit more about "Don't shoot, I'm the Doctor" in the book, but I didn't want to put undue weight on it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'll try to get some page numbers for you sometime soon. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. However, I've been noticing an upswing in people rejecting websites as reliable sources unless they're by the AP or a university or whatever (it's become a pet peeve of mine in AFD discussions), so if we can cite the actual book that will work a bit better. One reason I'm hesitant to add it just now even with the link you gave is it's so easy for someone to take FA status away from an article that for such a major addition I want to make sure the source is air-tight before adding it. 23skidoo (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I should google first and post later. There's a summary of the bible at http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/serials/tvm.html Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear Fry
I'm not sure that Fry's slip deserves so much comment, and I don't think it works as a <ref> because it's not a reference. It's a bit of an odd case - it's us making a comment of our own (we don't have a ref. to say he's unclear) but only to say that we don't know what he meant to say. That's why I put in {{sic}} - all we really know is that that's what the reference says he said. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- True, but sic is usually meant to imply an error or misspelling copied verbatim, so it's hard to look at it out of context. And we are supposed to be allowed to include footnotes. I thought footnotes used the same "ref" format - or is there another bit of coding and another section that should be used? 23skidoo (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- sic can also be used to show that something that isn't an error but which looks like one has been copied verbatim; so whether he meant series or not, sic is still appropriate. Regarding refs, there's work afoot to allow separate sections of references, but until it gets here we have to use {{ref}} and {{note}} for one set and <ref> for the others. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DWM 255
Does anyone have a copy of DWM 255? Apparently it had a feature on the proposed season 27+ stories: (according to this) Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
