No it was not RTD's choice, it was the BBC's. They chose to produce a Doctor Who movie With FOX, they chose to have #7 in the movie, they chose to have #7 regenerate into #8

The movie was produced by the BBC and aired on the BBC it has always been canon

I've said before that I think this idea that he was chosen by RTD (or anyone else making the show) to remain canonical is a false assumption. Rather, he was chosen by the fans to be canonical.

For them to have disregarded him they'd have to have made a big effort to say he WASN'T the 8th Doctor and to remove him from the continuity. There had already been many 8th Doctor novels, audio plays, merchandise. The fanbase had established him by supportign the product containing his Doctor. He was the 8th Doctor and had been for getting on ten years. That is too long a time period to just dismiss, even without the show having been on the air. At the end of the day, it would have been more controversial with more people, not to mention confusing to a casual audience, to exclude him than to accept him. Why would they want to upset the established fan-base of the show they were relaunching so needlessly, just because the odd person didn't like some aspects of his tenure that were never going to be referred to again anyway?

It would have been a very revisionist thing to do considering that in the real world Paul McGann was the 8th Doctor and there had been no doubt about it. The same way as Christopher Ecclestone was the 9th Doctor. Not John Hurt. In the real world, chronologically, Christopher Ecclestone was the 9th man to play the Doctor in the TV show. The continuity is second to that. Tennant was the 10th and Smith the 11th. McGann was the 8th and that's all there is to it. You could create a fantasy, rewrite history and say he wasn't; You can write him out of the in-show continuity, but you're really confusing things for the point of a principle not even held by very many (that his iteration was somehow blasphemous to the tenets of Doctor Who).

He was one of the 12 doctors before PC regenerated into the present one. He appeared in TND and TEH when the doctor briefly looked back at his other lives. So yes if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck we can call it a duck or a doctor.

Fully aware of all this, was talking about before any of it - 2005.

I agree. Making a deliberate effort to ignore and overwrite McGann would have been far more controversial than the actual decision to respect the established Eighth Doctor.

Indeed. There was only ever a 'debate' about canon amongst those few vocal fans who didn't want the TV Movie to be 'real' Doctor Who. A bit like how Creationists pretend there's 'debate' over their utterly ludicrous notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Day of the Doctor was screened in cinemas nationally and overseas, and in my opinion, much more able to be described as a "movie" than the 1996 feature-length pilot episode.

In 2005 he had already been established for 9 years as the 8th Doctor. Nothing to do with RTD. I am pretty sure that RTD would not have even considered retconning 7 to 8 (or if he had it would have been on a 'devil's advocate' basis). In order to consider Doctor Who's future, he had to, at the very least, take the fans with him and he wouldn't have done that, imo, had he decided to rewrite that one very big aspect of continuity.

The great thing about Doctor Who is that it can just pick-up at some point in the future with a new Doctor in a redesigned TARDIS. There was never any need to write McGann out of history and doing so would have made RTD look very petty and spiteful indeed. Just as Segal would himself have looked unpleasant if he had basically overwritten the JNT era with a Baker to McGann regeneration.

I think you have to remember how there was no certainty that RTD's Who revival would be a success. He had to win people over to it and had to play a delicate balancing act between modernising the show and respecting its history. Make too many changes and you alienate the core fanbase. Make too little and the show would have been too outdated to attract a wider following.

With that in mind, RTD handled it the only way he really could. He officially maintained McGann's canonicity, avoiding upsetting the legions of fans who had accepted him as the Doctor through other media, whilst also failing to make any actual significant acknowledgments in the show for several years, thereby not bogging down new viewers with masses of backstory.

Now I think it is fair to say that McGann moved beyond the TV movie and became very important to many fans. He was the Doctor when there was no Doctor Who on telly. Other media became all there was of Who and the only source of new stories for fans. For years. Cutting him out after all that would have put the die-hard fans in direct opposition to RTD's revival. That would have been a massive risk to take when trying to relaunch a show.

So yes, I think he made the right decision.

I think you mostly make some good points although I do have to say, where you said "there was no certainty RTD's who revival would be a success", the first time past doctors were shown at all was in the next doctor, by which time It already was a success.

I don't see how that's relevant. The fact is if he wanted to RTD could have ignored all previous Who and done a total reboot. As the makers of the TV movie could have done. They didn't. And its all the better for it. Yes there are a few elements of the TV pilot that don't sit well with so called 'canon' but that's always been the case throughout the fifty years. Yes the half human thing is a big one but everyone does just ignore it.

You haven't really clarified why you feel the TV pilot is separate from Doctor Who. As many have pointed out it isn't isn't the same as the Cushing movies. It made more sense for RTD to acknowledge it than to ignore it.

I actually addressed that very point in my post.

Also it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it. Saying McGann didn't appear in an episode of Doctor Who is not true. Its factually incorrect. The so called 'movie' was in fact for all intents and purposes a 'pilot' episode. The fact it didn't get picked up or taken any further is irrelevant. So there's a fundamental error in your original post which is inescapable.

Indeed. Using the OP's logic, the mystery of the John Hurt Doctor from the end of Series 8 remains unresolved because we didn't find out his past in an "episode" of the TV series. Also, we never found out what happened to President Borusa after Arc of Infinity because he didn't appear in another "episode".

DBB's core argument appears to be "I hate the whole half human thing, so I'll come up with tenuous reasons which RTD could (meaning should) have used to discount the entire TV Movie."

Seems to be so. And fine. I've never met anyone who likes that. But there are far more reasons why he should have been kept as canon. In fact it shouldn't ever have been a question. It would have made far less sense to ignore McGann than to acknowledge him.

This idea that it was up for debate in 2005 isn't true. It doesn't matter if there was American involvement in the TV pilot. It was made as a direct continuation of what went before. It didn't become canon because RTD said it did. It always was. Having Sylvester appear for a fairly significant part of the episode is enough in itself to confirm this. After all we had no such direct link in 'Rose'. So if you want to follow that line of reasoning you get into that realm of madness favoured by a certain person who shall not be named who kept claiming none of New Who was connected to Classic.

Like I said its one thing to ponder what if such and such had happened. Fact is it didn't.

I know the difference...



Regan was the pilot for the TV series The Sweeney ....... "Sweeney"(1977) and "Sweeney 2"(1978) are movies.

Space Seed is an episode of Star Trek:TOS ....... Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan is a movie.

Firefly is a TV Show ....... Serenity is a Movie.


... need I go on?

Day of the doctor was clearly an episode of the ongoing series and in no way as the same situation as the tv movie. and when you say my 'arguement' I never intended one. Yes, I personally believe discounting the tv movie could have been could for the content that it potrayed and the fact it was probably the only serious tv depiction of the doctor that was in a situation as such that there was a chance it could have been discounted, but my intention of the thread was to ask people their thoughts on the possibilites and pro's and cons of actually having/not having the tv movie as 'official. I think the threads lost it's point now though because every time people start engaging normally, with insightful comments, I notice their are some posters who keep popping back up on this thread for the sole purpose of starting trouble.

No ones starting trouble. Just pointing out that you have made some inaccurate statements about the nature of the TV pilot.

Everyone can have a fun debate about 'what if' but that's not actually what you've done on this thread. You seem convinced that the TV pilot was some bizarre anomaly in Who history up until the point RTD placed it in the canon. This isn't true. Its not a point for conjecture. McGann was and always has been canon. You might not like that fact and that's another debate. But stop pretending this isn't true. Because it is.

You made a statement previously saying implying that the 'real' series ran from Survival through to Rose and that the TV pilot was not part of this. I asked you to explain why and you ignored it.

Yet again I will repeat. The TV pilot was a direct continuation of Doctor Who and was intended as such at the time of broadcast. You cant rewrite history to suit your own opinions on its relative merits.

Also you might want to try not insulting other forum members by implying we aren't 'engaging normally' just because we challenge your statements. That's the point of a discussion. And so far you are yet to address the points made apart from accusing someone else of being incapable of telling the difference between an episode and a movie. In fact its you who seems to not understand the difference.

I've noticed that there's been a few times lately where you've just popped up on a thread to attack the thoughts and opinions of others. There's this one and the 'dont vote tory' one that are examples of this just in the first page and yet you created the the 'time of angels/flesh and stone repeat' thread and haven't bothered to contribute to it since, when you were one of the people having a go at a certain other forum member for doing just that not so long ago

As a point of interest, I remember watching the TV movie when it first aired. For me, Doctor Who had ended just before I started secondary school and the TV movie aired just after I'd finished. For a teenager, that was an age of a gap where the show wasn't running!

Remember, this was in the days before forums like this. All I knew about the TV movie was that it was a joint UK/US production and a well-regarded British actor was playing the Doctor. I went into it expecting it to completely ignore everything that came before and to be essentially a reboot. So I was quite surprised when it opened with a retooling of the original theme song AND then had Sylvester McCoy playing the Doctor! Sylvester McCoy, also acknowledging that he was the 7th Doctor! The Master was the main villain. The Daleks got a name-drop. Gallifrey was mentioned.

I wasn't expecting this. I was expecting a totally clean slate, but here they were, carrying on like it was not a new series, but the beginning of a new season of a long-running show. It actually showed more connection to the classic show than "Rose" did in 2005. "Rose" could have been the first episode of a rebooted show, based on its content alone. The TV movie was, without doubt, intended to be a direct follow-on to the old series.

I just thought that was worth sharing, as a classic series fan who actually expected the TV movie/new-series pilot to be cleanly separated from what came before. It was not in any way separate. In fact, it made a clear and decisive effort to attach itself to what came before.

By "argument", I meant you were putting forward an argument, rather than starting an argument. My own counter argument is that explicitly overwriting the TV Movie would have been damaging to the perceived canonicity of the 2005 series.

As it stands, both the 1996 TV Movie and the 2005 series are canon. If things had happened your way, fandom would have suffered endless squabbles (the other definition of argument) over which Eighth Doctor was the 'real' one.

I made a valid point and opinion in the 'dont vote tory thread'. And also I posted my opinion about Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone in my original post. This is vastly different from those who start a thread topic and just say 'what do you think'. If you don't see the difference then its not my problem.

Also why don't you stay on topic? Instead of commenting on my posting style try addressing the points I have made.

Its not attacking others opinions. Its called disagreeing. Its part of the joy of forums. You know. Where people get to agree and disagree. Or would it be better if everyone said 'Yes you're totally right!' all the time? Not only do I disagree with your opinion but I also am pointing out that you have made some factually inaccurate statements. That isn't 'attacking' anyone. Its noticeably you who has chosen to comment on me regarding things outside of the thread topic. So perhaps follow your own advice. Or not. I don't care. But I will continue to post my opinions. Hope that's ok with you.

^^^ This ^^^



If the OP is going to ask people what they think and then tell them they're wrong for thinking it, then why not be sincere about it from the off and start a thread called "This is what I think and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" and see how interested people are in contributing when they are made fully aware of their stance on the matter from the start


Besides which, don't you think it's somewhat ridiculous to dig your heels in on something that has never truly been brought to question?

McGann is the Eighth Doctor, his Movie and Minisode appearances are canon, as are now, at the very least, the names of the companions he mentioned in TNOTD.

The only "official" Doctor to have been retconned out of existence is Richard E Grant's "Shalka Doctor" who exists in a continuity where 8 doesn't become the War Doctor

I think 'Dalek Blue Box' started this thread under the guise of a 'what if' scenario when that obviously wasn't his real intention.

saladfingers81 made valid comments regarding certain things you ascertained. You could have simply addressed those comments instead of attacking them.

1) The title 'TV Movie' was given retrospectively. (It was a pilot for a potential series and so is simply an extended episode.)
2) It was a continuation of the previous series.
3) It had the seventh Doctor in it (therefore showing it was a continuation.)
4) It showed the regeneration from the seventh Doctor.
5) It was BBC official.
6) Mcgann was announced as the eighth Doctor officially.

How much more canon could it have been?

Mcgann was canon before RTD even had the new series.

Yes, I suppose he could have re-written history by ignoring it. But then, if anyone so wished, they could argue that Ecclestone could have been the seventh Doctor as the sixth Doctor was really trapped in the Matrix and everything from there until the 2005 series was the Doctor hallucination.

Personally I don't like re-writing canon and I don't like 'it was all a dream' scenarios.