Talk:Doctor Who (TV story)

Story Number
How can the TV movie be story number 156 when Survival has the same story number? Story numbering is broken. The problem is Shada seems to be counted although it was never finished as such... But that would mean bumping all the stories from The Leisure Hive to Survival one number less...--Adric81 11:18, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as Planet of the Dead is considered the 200th official episode, I think we should count backwards from there, It would seem that any cound would be based off that from now on. Counting back from the movie and noting two/three parters as a,b,c makes this story 156 and Survivial 155. Once we get to Shada, stop. The numbers should then work. Suffice to say Shada doesn't count, although we could then argue that Mission into the Unknown forms part a of The Daleks' Master Plan. That would allow Shada to count, but in the meantime I suggest we not count it. Taccer 07 20:16, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

US
Anyone know where I might be able to get this film in the US? I know its never been released here, and I really want to see it. I have checked Ebay and Amazon with no luck..


 * it has no US release for legal reasons, so I hear. easy enough to find on the torrents, though. --Stardizzy2 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Move
Has there been any discution about the move form TV Movie to Doctor Who (1996) ? Dark Lord Xander 01:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Move reverted. This story is known as 'Doctor Who: The Movie' on the DVD, colloquially known as 'the TV movie', on the BBC's website it is quite clearly titled Doctor Who: The TV Movie. I understand CzechOut's argument (however any major moves such as this should have been placed in the talk pages before moving the page). --Tangerineduel 05:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed my thoughts exactly i know the TV movie was called Doctor Who but the dvd was called Doctor Who: The Movie as you say and everything since then that i know of has refered to it as the TV Movie perhapse the section on the name in story notes could be expanded. Dark Lord Xander 05:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was a completely non-controversial move, as it is copyrighted under the name Doctor Who, and is listed as such on Shannon Sullivan's site, the Doctor Who Guide, and IMDb. Additionally, it was released as such initially to home video (that is, in its 1996 VHS release), its soundtrack recording, its novelization, and its script release.  The DVD is the only release of this story to add anything else to the title but the words Doctor Who.  In any case, no official release of this thing or any of its ancillary products has the word "TV" or "television" in it.   Beyond all that, though, there's no other onscreen title but Doctor Who.   After-the-fact renamings can't take precedence over contemporary names.  It's inconvenient for the BBC to call this simply Doctor Who now that the name applies most lucratively to the original and BBC Wales versions, but that is what they called it and marketed as at the time, and it remains the only name of official record.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be so but i see no reason for the page to be moved if there was ever another TV movie with no other name that Doctor who then by all means move this page to Doctor Who (1996) however at the present time i see no reason for change. Dark Lord Xander 01:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason is we're trying to be accurate, not just approximate. The only reason it's now thought of as "the TV movie" is because that's ultimately all it was.  But, again, giving this page the title Doctor Who: The TV Movie is rather akin to calling the original series, Doctor Who: The Original Series.  It's a descriptive term, not what the thing was actually called.  Since the link to Doctor Who: The TV Movie was preserved, I honestly don't see the harm in the page going by the official title.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong I understand that and really i guess it just comes down to preference as well as a navigation issue when you type doctor who into the wiki you would expect to go to either the main summary of the series or the character, whilst if you typed in tv movie or a veriation of that you would expect to be directed in this articles direction. Ultimately if you really want to change it then i won't stop you but really it's just what people in general think we should do that matters and as long as you have people that are opposed to this move the disagrement will continue. Dark Lord Xander 02:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but changing the name of the article doesn't affect navigability. Moving the article name maintains the previous links to Doctor Who: The TV Movie.  In fact, I would argue that additional redirects be created for Doctor Who: The Movie and Doctor Who: The TV movie and even The TV Movie, the TV movie, and the television movie are called for.  Typing "Doctor Who" into the search box won't bring up Doctor Who (1996), but rather the general series page


 * [I personally would argue that it should bring up a disambig page, because the three series are sufficiently distinct from each other that they should all have their own pages, along with a page for Doctor Who (character), which was the assumed to be a titular character for much of the first four Doctors' eras. It's still the assumed name by the general public, as evidenced by interviewers referring to David Tennant as "Doctor Who".  But that's a separate issue, and it would honestly wreak havoc on the wiki to make such a change.]


 * The point is, the title of the page should be the most accurate name, while common, colloquial variants can be redirected there. As it is, the situation is precisely reversed.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well i am begining to see your point however before making the change i suggest you wait for imput from other users perhapse starting a fourm page will invite more users to the discution personlly i don't mind either way but having Doctor Who (1996) does seem more professional than TV Movie and as long as the TV Movie is redirected i see no real problem Dark Lord Xander 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, CzechOut, your arguments are good ones, go ahead and move it to Doctor Who (1996), with your additional redirects as well. --Tangerineduel 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved and redirects created Dark Lord Xander 12:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a bulletin board where such changes can be posted? I've no objection to the move (especially as I just did a move regarding Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks with similar rationale), but not being aware tha a change had occured, I've probably created a number of redirect links not realizing it had been changed. 23skidoo 18:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No board I'm aware of, though I do think we could stand to have a more formalized system of move proposals/debates, as on MemoryAlpha. However, the solution here was to establish redirects, so you could call it whatever you wanted to and you'd still get here.  This article can be accessed by about ten different variations on the title.  I'm sure whatever links you created are fine.  Redirects aren't "bad" in and of themselves; they're sometimes quite useful, as with a case like this.  Actually, the Doctor Who in an Exciting Adventure with the Daleks is a bit different to this situation, in that one of the actual, copyrighted names for that work now leads to a disambig page.  That's unavoidable in that situation, because of the similarly named Dr. Who and the Daleks.  Most users aren't going to know that Doctor Who and the Daleks will take them to the book, but Dr. Who and the Daleks will lead them to the film.  So the need for a disambig there is greater than the need for Doctor Who and the Daleks to redirect.  This is precisely the opposite situation; tons of names leading unambiguously to exactly the same place.    Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DVD Releases, 2 different
This movie had both a 2001 and a 2007 DVD release. Are theri any differences between the two? 


 * Nope, no difference. The 2007 release was a re-release. I'm not sure but I think it was a cardboard slipcover over the top of the original (though I may be wrong in that respect). But the disc and its features were exactly the same. --Tangerineduel 12:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the 2007 DVD release and the earlier VHS release, though, if the Geoffrey Sax commentary is any guide. Something about the VHS release being the British transmission edit.   Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  00:59, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Production Section
Since the Production section nearly the biggest section shouldnt there be a seperate page. Im just throwing the idea out


 * A completely separate page or a sub-page of the article? (Which would be Doctor Who (1996)/Production). --Tangerineduel 12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps a sub-page of the article, how would you make the sub-page is it that you would create the article and copy the information from this page about the Production to that sub-page article (if that makes a little bit of sense) and if you Tangerineduel did that basic stuff I would more than happy to come along and edit it more Bigshowbower 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've created the sub-page and copied the information across, but I'm not sure it should be kept, it's been wholesale lifted from the A Brief History of (Time) Travel website. If we're going to keep it it's going to need to be re-referenced with footnotes (properly, not just a weblink at the end) and with more than one source backing it up. I've chucked a Template:Inuse at the top of it and a cleanup and the base of the article, just to make doublely sure it's not yet mistaken for the actual thing. --Tangerineduel 11:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratings section

 * The Ratings section is missing some information, as it needs to be indicated if the number stated is the UK rating or the US rating. Also, since only one number is listed, which country is not included, the rating should be noted. This was primarily a US effort (they showed it first, and its success/lack thereof dictated the decision not to do another film or series), so the US number in this case should be emphasized. 23skidoo 17:00, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Are the rights to the 1996 movie owned outright by the BBC now, or is it still through Fox? (I *think* BBC owns it-- there was footage in The Next Doctor-- but I imagine the most recent DVD would say for sure.)

I want to properly credit the actual copyright holder for a screenshot instead if just saying "well it belongs to someone." -Derik 22:17, January 11, 2010 (UTC)