Talk:List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listList of unmade Doctor Who serials and films is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
December 12, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
August 23, 2021Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Stephen Fry[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, done. Thanks. Percy Snoodle 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I believe that information about this story can be found in 'The Complete Fourth Doctor: Volume Two' from Pannini.

The Dark Dimension[edit]

Should this be under the Fourth Doctor? Percy Snoodle 11:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Incomplete list marker and custom TOC?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]

One last reference[edit]

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)[reply]


The Last of The Timelords[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Third Yeti story?[edit]

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)[reply]

Scratchman statement needs a source[edit]

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)[reply]

The source is the same DWM article - I've updated the ref tags to show that. Percy Snoodle 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling that was the case, but I didn't want to make an assumption. 23skidoo 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shada statement[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Yellow Fever and Peri[edit]

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)[reply]

reference & citation cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks! Percy Snoodle 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmade or Unproduced for the title?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What about "proposed"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget that - that's even worse for promoting speculation. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would say put the word Unproduced, because that word is more proper MordantFan (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Doctor Who[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Dark Dimension "direct-to-TV"[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

The McGann TV series[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK - I'll try to get some page numbers for you sometime soon. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Unclear Fry[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Either way, I agree with you that the note I added should go under a footnote-style header rather than references. Feel free to make such a change if you haven't already. Otherwise, I'll look into it when I have a few minutes. 23skidoo (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DWM 255[edit]

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)[reply]

Do you still want it? I only saw this today and I have a copy of the issue. Davhorn (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still be interested to see what it had to say about the proposed McCoy stories, and whether it said anything about Richard Griffiths. Anything you could add to the article with refs to the issue would be greatly appreciated. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trial of a Time Lord" Candidates[edit]

Following a request from a friend I invaded my attic yesterday and managed to dig up dusty copies of both "Hollows of Time" and "Pinacotheca". They appear to be complete first (and in this context also last) drafts.

"Hollows" is two eps only, and I thought I must be missing eps 3 and 4, but the W. says it's only a 2-ep story, so perhaps we're OK on that front, and thanks to the W. for that.

But the W. and other WWW sites refer to an alternative title for Pinacotheca as "The Last Adventure".

Does anyone have a citation for this? There is much I don't remember about my season at DW, but I certainly don't remember this story ever having that title.

Bidmead (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of this edit, it came from The Handbook: The Sixth Doctor - The Colin Baker Years 1984-1986; the two titles were added at the same time by 23skidoo; I'll put a note on his talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked the book and here's what it says on Pg. 211: " "A submission was commissioned from Christopher H. Bidmead on 29 October 1985 under the working title The Last Adventure, although this would later be changed to Pinacotheca." I don't know if you have any contact with the authors David Howe, Mark Stammers or Stephen James Walker but they may be able to provide you with their source. As an aside, it's great to hear from you - I was just watching the Castrovalva and Logopolis DVDs the other day too! 23skidoo (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if there's a print citation I'll defer to that. We can blame the book if it's wrong... :-) It's entirely possible that the totally forgettable title of "The Last Adventure" was attached to the commission (because they had to call it something), and I just totally forgot about it. Bidmead (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the book doesn't say how long the title was in place. For all we know it might have been around just long enough for someone to see the memo and say "uh-uh". ;-) 23skidoo (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K9[edit]

Why isn't "K-9 and Company" series not on this list? 70.51.8.158 (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a list of unmade Doctor Who programs. The K-9 & Company pilot was made, it just wasn't picked up as a series. If you can find any proof that there were unfilmed scripts for the program, they will be the first I've heard of.Wyldstaar (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts commissioned for new series[edit]

A Mark Gatiss WWII script was commissioned for series four but not used "The Fires of Pompeii" replaced it in the series (see "The Writer's Tale" by R.T. Davies). There were other scripts that were commissioned and not made. I believe that "Fear Her" replaced another script in series two. Does anyone else have any information? 69.86.255.41 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Taras[reply]

  • Feel free to add the Gatiss one to the list, since you can cite a good source. I've yet to obtain a copy of the Writers Tale book (too expensive!) but I'm willing to bet there are a few tidbits like this in there. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell Great Macedon book[edit]

I just obtained my copy of this book. There's detail in here about additional First Doctor scripts commissioned but not made. I added Farhi's The Divided to that section and will add additional details on the others (they aren't by Farhi) if there's anything of note in the text. I added the book to the bibliography, but as this is a privately published book, it has no ISBN. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The would-be Season 27[edit]

This section of the article is highly flawed. It treats Dave Owen's What If? article in DWM 255 as gospel when the 27 Up article over the page makes clear distinctions between the fact and the fiction of What If? that have been completely missed here.

For one thing, no-one was being considered to replace Sylvester McCoy. John Nathan-Turner stated in 27 Up that he considered Richard Griffiths for the part of an earlier Doctor but that Griffiths was unavailable. As for Julia Sawalha as the character we now know as Raine, not Kate, that was based on her being invited to audition for the part of Ace as per the words of her then boss Steven Moffat (!) over the page. Griffiths and Sawalha were NEVER approached or considered to replace McCoy and Aldred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostart (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but Cartmel actually left Doctor Who before Season 26 had even finished recording. He was offered, and took a job on Casualty. JNT also submitted his resignation. So, there would have been a new Producer, and a new Script Editor. Mccoy has confirmed this in interviews, as well as admitting that the new Production Team would almost certainly want their own Doctor and their own companion(s). Before the new Production Team was officially put together however, Cregeen had other ideas. And even on the Survival DVD extra, Endgame, Aaarnovitch and Cartmel state that what they had were some ideas, and some visual gags, not actual stories. The Atraxi had actually been featured in a stage play, and had failed enormously, prompting the play to be radically altered. In addition, the scenes they described are not only unfunny, but also would have been far beyond the budget for Doctor Who at the time(the so-called spoof of TNG being enormously expensive,as well as being anachronistic. TNG didn't debut on UK tv until 1990). That is of course assuming the new Production Team had any interest in those very rough ideas(not scripts). Aaranovitch was already notorious for not completing his scripts in time, Cartmel had a full-time job on another show, and Platt was already an in-house joke, and only got to submit Ghostlight because Cartmel was Script Editor at the time. Which he wouldn't have been for Season 27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohwrotcod (talk • contribs) 09:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hasselhoff as the Doctor.[edit]

Hasselhoff quits Doctor Who film How come this isn't covered in the article? I remembered there was an article on it in SFX.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably because it was a bogus story? It was just a joke, alongside that story about Bill Hartnell swearing. Now if you can find an actual bit of real news coverage by the BBC or Doctor Who Magazine, then let's talk. Otherwise, it's just a joke. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Chase[edit]

There is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that The Chase was to have been the subject of a third Subotsky movie. Amicus didn't make their third movie bid until the mid 1980s. Richard Bignell 25 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.76.249 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential bad link (or source)[edit]

The Alan Wakeman link (which is an internal wikipedia link) appears to be to the wrong subject. There's no mention on the Wakeman page of him being a writer in any capacity, never mind a tv script writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.6.232 (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Sargasso / Valley of Shadows[edit]

The Space Sargasso and Valley of Shadows summaries both cite Sullivan (2006g) using identical statements of when and why each story was rejected. This could indicate an error of boilerplated text: i.e., that one or both may be in error. Are there any sources that corroborate Sullivan independently? Memetics (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On 28 December 1983, Martin sent into the production office a three-page document outlining three ideas. Saward sent a memo to Nathan-Turner saying that the outlines were too brief to give any indication as to who they would work and that he found them uninspiring. By Richard Bignell 26 November 2013

"Lost in the Dark Dimension" section[edit]

Although I understand that all work here must be properly sourced, the "Lost in the Dark Dimension" section contains so many references that it becomes extremely unpleasant to read. Would there perhaps be a way to reduce that number of references? Supertanno (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried on a couple of sentences, and I reckon it is possible. Cutting out some of the excess detail would make it simpler too. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early 90s series[edit]

Having just watched the extra feature on the new Inferno DVD about DW in the 90s, I was gobsmacked to hear about the independent series that was not only proposed in the early 90s but actually had a couple of episodes made (and then destroyed). Is there any other information about this? I see no mention of it here. Has Doctor Who Magazine talked about it at all?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at http://www.endofthelane.co.uk/burton.html, which should help explain the situation! Richard Bignell 25 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Interesting and bizarre, but probably shouldn't be mentioned in this article afterall.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that a)that almost certainly won't pass as a reliable source for Wikipedia. b)There are reliable sources speaking of the Burton project. c)The article itself mentions the 'cancellation' of 1989, which is a fan myth. d)It was for a documentary on a 2Entertain DVD, which are themselves notorious for factual errors e)Just because one person couldn't track down certain details doesn't mean they don't exist. As noted there are reliable sources pointing to the Burton project. And since Bignell was coming to this with a preconceived idea, his 'findings' were predtermined.

But really, all one needs is reliable sources(and endofthelane isn't a reliable source) mentioning the project. Louis F Barfe (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments on the above. B) If there are any "reliable" sources for Burton's story, then do please cite them. Other than Burton himself, no one else he's mentioned over the years backs up his story. C) The "cancellation" in 1989 isn't a myth and there's plenty of evidence to show that's precisely what the BBC were doing, even if they weren't saying so publicly at the time. And finally, I wasn't coming to it with any preconceived idea and indeed I state in the article that I'd love the story to be true. As a historical researcher, I've looked at all the available evidence impartially, have done several months worth of work of my own contacting people and looking at records, and have come to a personal conclusion. ~~Richard Bignell. 23 October 2014~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.157.3 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Lost Season 23[edit]

Ian Levine posted a message on Gallifrey Base, as well as on his Facebook page about the usual revisionist nonsense concerning the originally-planned Season 23. Here it is:

Doctor Who - THE ABORTED SEASON 23 - THE TRUE FACTS.

March 19, 2015 at 1:24am

SOMEONE NEEDS TO FINALLY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. HERE IS MY LETTER ABOUT IT TO GALLIFREY BASE.

I absolutely HAVE to wade in here and put the record straight. During this period, I was around JNT and Eric almost every day, and I knew absolutely everything to do with the production at that time, including who was writing what. The DVD documentary about the aborted season 23 is flawed in the extreme, and nobody ever talked to me, the one and only person who knew what all six stories were. Eric has a memory like a sieve, and remembers nothing of that period, but I have a photographic memory, which mercifully was not affected by my stroke, and it still pains me to read such inaccuracies. The six stories of season 23 were as follows...

THE NIGHTMARE FAIR

THE ULTIMATE EVIL

MISSION TO MAGNUS

YELLOW FEVER

THE HOLLOWS OF TIME

GALLIFREY

There is no doubt about the accuracy of this. Eric was writing Gallifrey. After the cancellation, JNT and Eric had a furious row because John wanted to carry on with the same scripts. Eric said that it needed a new fresh approach so he refused to complete Gallifrey. In a classic fit of pique, John commissioned Pip and Jane Baker to write it to Eric's storyline. After one week, Eric made such an almighty stink that the commission was withdrawn, but I believe the stigma of this action led to Eric's finally walking out a year later. Eric finds this period so painful he has forgotten half of what happened, but Bob Holmes had offered the guidance of a mentor to Eric to write a story about con men, deposed Presidents, and sleeper agents with a hint of The Manchurian Candidate thrown in. Eric discussed the entire plot with me prior to the cancellation, but it never made it past the original story ideas as it would have been the last of the six stories to go into production, but Julian Glover was considered as the machiavellian arch villain President. The Children Of January was a spare script and would only ever have made it to season 24, if ever used at all. Eric hated it. As for Yellow Fever, I had a photocopy of the original scene breakdown of all three episodes, given to me by Eric. Indeed at one point Eric was hired to write it for the Doctor WHO book range, and got paid an advance, which he later returned. The Rani was never to be in this story. Kate O'Mara was still doing Dynasty, and there was no mention of her in the story breakdown. This was a story about The Master, The Brigadier, UNIT, and Benton. The first half was set in London, with an Auton Prime Minister, the second half in Singapore. It would have been wonderful, especially with Graeme Harper directing.

I am really sick and tired of people spouting fantasy mistruths about this cancelled season. I always regretted its loss,down to being JNT's mouthpiece to Charles Catchpole of The Sun, and the dreaded Doctor In Distress, and I reconstructed three of the missing stories myself on audio, and did detailed visual recons on DVD of all six stories, with Nicola Bryant, Julian Glover, Milton Johns, Jon Levene, Waris Hussein, John Leeson, Nigel Plaskitt, Ian Fairbairn, and many many more. I am incredibly proud of them. Both Yellow Fever and Gallifrey were totally faithful to the original storylines.

I can 100% assure you all, no matter what anyone says to the contrary, that Gallifrey WAS to be the sixth story of that aborted season. And Yellow Fever's tag "And How To Cure It", was a Bob Holmes joke and never seriously intended to be a part of the title. That imagined cover featuring The Rani is just plain WRONG on so so many levels.

He also makes some Comments below:

  • It really irks me when people spout bullshit. Sometimes the paperwork doesn't tell the whole story or the intent. That stupid DVD documentary made my blood boil with its gross inaccuracies.
  • The fucking bully Moderators on Gallifrey Base removed my post about all this. First time I posted on there for over a year. They can go fuck themselves.
  • Phil, he most certainly gets out of his technicolour dreamcoat in Gallifrey.
  • Both The Nightmare Fair and Mission To Magnus are incredibly accurate. But they(Big Finish) did a horrible job with The Hollows Of Time.

So there you go, the REAL originally-planned Season 23.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Children of January by Michael Feeney Callan[edit]

I think there is a lot more about Callan’s abandoned two-parter: The story would be the Doctor and Peri landing on a desert planet that is conquered from an unmerciful race called The Z’ros (Callan refereed as “human bees”- no more as considered as an alien). Peri complains that the planet they are on is no fun for her, and the Doctor tries to take Peri somewhere else, but the Z’ros army caught them and their leader would try to execute them. Luckily, “The Children of January”- renegade outcasts-the outcast leader tells the Z’ros leader to spare their lives. The Doctor then tells Peri to stay in the TARDIS. The Doctor is then having a discussion with outcast leader about why “The Children of January” themselves hate the Z’ros. The leader explains that the planet was getting dry with little water, the Z’ros plan on taking the as a mega empire and their leader plans on killing the outcast villagers. In the TARDIS, Peri is wondering where the Doctor is now. Unexpectedly, the TARDIS is attacked by a Z’ros laser cannon. The Doctor tries to negotiate with the Z’ros to stop destroying his ship, but the Z’ros leader forces the Doctor to surrender. He quickly fleas to the ship. The Doctor and Peri plan on exploding the Z’ros ship, and they did. After evacuating, The Doctor tells the Z’ros leader to make peace with “the Children of January”. The Doctor and Peri then continue their travels in time and space. WhoCrusader (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone posted earlier, The Children of January was never supposed to be part of the originally planned Season 23. That's revisionism, just like lots of features on the 2Entertain DVDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.126 (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The story was actually part of the Season 23 canon as considered for most research and fandom MordantFan (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link for The Children of January[edit]

Here’s one: Michael Feeney Callan MordantFan (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daleks vs Mechons[edit]

The notion that there was to be a third Cushing film based on The Chase is incorrect. Daleks vs Mechons was a fan-made film trailer for a fictional third film by Andrew Orton that has been up on YouTube since 2010. Doctor Who Magazine 461, as referenced in the Wiki section, makes no reference whatsoever to a third Cushing film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.164.236 (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo Film Adaptation[edit]

There was no enquiry by Disney into the possibility of adapting Marco Polo into a feature film. This a misreading of a BBC memo relating to an enquiry from a children's publication that used to adapt Disney films (both animation and live action) into comic strip versions, published in full each issue. There was a brief query made as to whether Marco Polo could also be adapated for the publication, but this came to nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.164.236 (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting - Season 13[edit]

The indication that The Haunting's subject matter was vampires and that Terrance Dicks reused some of the material when he later wrote The Vampire Mutation has no basis in fact. Terrance Dicks freely admitted that he had absolutely no memory of submitting The Haunting back in 1974 or what it was about. The suggestion that had any connection with vampires is pure supposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.85.92 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

If the references make sense to anyone, could they be clarified for the rest of us. Especially the Doctor Who Magazine sources, are they volumes or issues? User-duck (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue numbers 88.97.55.154 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unmade_Doctor_Who_serials_and_films&oldid=1208478816"