Hmm. Not sure about that either. They're certainly able to fund or co-fund original cinema movies, not based on a TV series. There's been a celebration just recently for 25 years of BBC Films. Films like Truly, Madly Deeply and Billy Elliot and many, many more.

It doesn't make sense that they'd be allowed to do that and not one based on an existing property they already own.

I wouldn't mind watching a DW Movie that is based on the TV show. ie: A different actor and companions which could be set in an entirely different time and place (such as the Peter Cushing films were). It wouldn't interfere with the continuity of the TV series at all.
It would be just an interesting story based on our hero Time-Lord! (Could be referenced as Doctor No.60 for sake of argument!)
Maybe the Blinovitch Limitation Effect can have something to do with it!
("I'll explain later")

I suppose it comes down to how BBC Films is funded - there may be licensing implications if they're considered a separate commercial organisation from other publicly-funded BBC activity. They would effectively be a client like any other.

This from BBC CEFAX 14th feb 1997:

LEGAL ACTION OVER DO WHO FILM PLANS

"The BBC is being sued for £14m after it allegedly back-tracked on a deal to make a film version of Doctor Who. A consortium of three film makers wanted Alan Rickman and Leonard Nimoy to star in and direct a Dr Who movie three years ago. They and their backers issued a High Court writ demanding £1m compensation and £13m for lost potential profits.

The BBC made a Dr Who film, broadcast last May, in association with US giant Universal Television. The BBC has said that it will "vigourously contest" any legal action over claims that it went back on an agreement to make a Dr Who film.A spokesman said: "They had the rights from us but even with an extended period of time could not get the production off the ground. The rights reverted back to the BBC.

Senior BBC sources say there are no plans to make a follow up Dr Who TV film. US group Universal has until the end of the year to decide if it will make another film with the BBC."

I

Let's not kid ourselves, if the BBC wanted to make a movie, they would.

People used to love to point out that BBC TV aren't able to benefit in any way from the money made by BBC Worldwide selling-on its TV shows around the world. Then the same kinds of people liked to say that the end of Top Gear means less money for Radio 4 and other BBC2 shows that benefit from the cash, etc. And then there's Top Gear Live, Doctor Who magazines, books and other things beyond the main TV show. If the BBC wanted to make a Dr Who movie, they'd make it happen, just like they let Big Finish make audio versions.

A more interesting hypothetical question is what would happen if the Terry Nation estate stopped licensing the Daleks to the BBC for Doctor Who because they'd been out-bid by Star Trek or Star Wars? Nation created the 'concept' of the Daleks but not the design, so who owns the intellectual property rights to the pepper pot designs, their voices, etc?

If (hypothetically) a Star Trek film got the rights to the Daleks, would they have to be completely different designs, even though they could still be called Daleks and have the names Davros, Thals, Skaro, etc?

And who owns the rights to things that have been added to Dalek lore beyond Terry Nation himself, such as the Asylum, Cult of Skaro, the 'Evolution' Dalek, special weapons Dalek or the internals of the Daleks as seen in "Into the Dalek"?

Whilst we are on the subject of BBC series being made into movies, don't forget about The Likely Lads film of the early 70's
If I remember correctlty, didn't RTD once say that he would have no objection to a Dr Who film, but it would have to star the current tv Doctor.

It's not really 'fanwank'. It's no different to what Marvel have done with The Avengers and what Doctor Who has done in the past. I could definitely see a Doctor Who movie with multiple Doctors happening one day because it would have to be big to be a movie.

Why on earth would you want Disney to get their hands on even a piece of Who?

Exactly! Why? I'm not all that happy with Disney getting the licence to make another Star Wars film.

When I think of Disney, I think of animation, and cartoons, that sort of thing. Like Mickey Mouse, Snow White, Bambi, Finding Nemo, and so on. Not live action stuff!

As I said before, Disney would ruin DW. So they should leave alone.

Disney has a fine tradition of producing high quality live-action sci-fi epics, such as this one
What are you worried about?

Yes, this.

So what was the Paul McGann Movie? Not a Movie?

Nope. A TV movie is possibly approapriate but rather a dated term. Feature length pilot episode. Often referred to as the movie because of its standalone nature and movie length running time. But really it's not a movie.

It was The Sensational Feature Length Film on VHS. If only...

I've read your latest post with interest and can see you probably have a point re: copyright ownership. I seem to remember the BBC had a credit in the Dad's Army film and the Doctor Who films, but have just checked the Porridge credits on the you tube link above and there appeared no mention of the BBC. But I have one point and one question: 1) in reality, despite who owns the copyright to BBC shown programmes (and I guess it's all more complicated with independent companies producing programmes to be shown on the BBC than in the old days of in house production) but in reality there does not really seem much of a barrier to "BBC" programmes being made into films. And 2) what original BBC drama productions did you have in mind that were not allowed to be adapted? They pushed boundaries with what specifically? I am asking out of curiosity! From Quatermass to House of Cards to State of Play etc I am wondering what counts as an original BBC production that CAN'T be made into a film.

It is fanwank.

Like they ruined, er, Tigger and Pooh, tiggerpooh?

Then by that definition, so is The Avengers...

It depends on the ownership of the rights to characters, and whether programmes were developed from novels.

In the case of State of Play it would be Paul Abbot, and possibly the production company, who would have the rights to take to a movie company. It depends on the contract as to whether the BBC simply contracted out production or if it was a full-on independent production that had been brought to them.

The only problem with the SOP movie, assuming BBC ownership of the production - not the characters or storylines remember, they would remain Paul Abbott's - would have been if the movie company had wanted to use anything created specifically for the TV production, perhaps music or designs, in which case they would either have to enter into negotiations or go their own way entirely.

House of Cards is a simple one - it's not a re-make of the UK television series, it's a new take on the Michael Dobbs books. Again, unless they want specific BBC parts (music again) it's not an issue. It's entirely down to Dobbs and his agent,

Quatermass is slightly complicated as the BBC and Nigel Kneale (or now his estate) apparently have joint ownership of The Quatermass Experiment. That was originally written when he was a staff writer for the BBC. Subsequent serials I believe were Kneale's alone.

The likes of Steptoe and Son, The Likely Lads, Porridge, Dad's Army and Are You Being Served would all have been in the same category as [i]State of Play{/i}. And there was a notable lack of theme tunes in use in those sitcom remakes - something that would have had to be paid for.

Doctor Who's a very exceptional case, however, as the basic format is 100% owned by the BBC themselves. The complication is that much of what followed isn't the BBC's. They don't own the theme, they don't own the basic storylines to the individual stories, or the characters which the writers created. There are exceptions of course - designs belong to them, the music from the Radiophonic Workshop, which was an in-house department. Concepts like the search for The Key to Time is the BBC's, and the Master was created by the production team - companions are a complicated area as most are BBC owned, but some like Nyssa are owned by the script writers.

The problem with a film, certainly at the current point in time, is that Doctor Who is currently in production as a television series. You pay your Licence Fee and in return you get to see it on your TV for thirteen weeks of the year, all in glorious HD.

All well and good, but then suppose the BBC suddenly decided that the 53rd anniversary in 2016 would be a great time for a movie.

You've got two choices. 1) Use the TV cast for the story. 2) Do something completely different.

Taking 2) first, it's just not going to happen while modern day Doctor Who is on TV. There would be such a storm kicked up that it would make Jar Jar Binks The Television Series look like a viable option. You can't have two competing versions of the same thing at once. It would be absolute suicide. It would weaken the position of the TV production as comparisons would instantly be made to the big budget movie, and the movie itself would get trashed for not being the TV series. The worst of all worlds, and it just wouldn't happen.

The various attempts at a Doctor Who movie from the 1970s to 1990s were in a totally different environment, and in all seriousness no one could ever see them getting off the ground anyway.

Back to 1). Use the TV characters. It'll need to be bigger than ever before, so how about a round-up of all the living Doctors in a galaxy-spanning storyline. It'll be massive, it'll raise the bar (I probably now owe Russell T Davies 2p for use of that phrase!) and it'll be amazing.

And it'll only cost you an extra £10 to see it in cinemas next year...

Oh, and by the way, the storylines in this season and the following one will all deal with the lead up to and fallout from this movie. Which you'll have to watch to understand. And as a side effect they'll have to cut back production of the TV series to accommodate the movie as well.

Put simply, it cannot happen. And the reason for that is that the BBC are not allowed to do stuff like movies, or books, or audios, where audiences would be forced to go elsewhere for integral parts of the story. It's simply not on, and they would rightly be crucified for it. The potential political fall-out doesn't even begin to bare thinking about, and that's even before you get to the anti-BBC press would who be demanding Savile-esque enquires before the ink could even dry on the contract.

It's why there were no Time War books when the backstory to it was playing such a role in the television series.

The only viable way forward for a Doctor Who movie is for the TV series to be cancelled. Again, it ain't happening.

Nice detailed post there. Spot on. And happily, you're last line sums the current situation up. I don't want a film.

OT: Finally saw the Simm/Morrissey State of Play in tle last couple of days. Terrific stuff.

Seems to me the 50th Anniversary special was, to all intents and purposes, a movie. It was movie length and shown in cinemas. What's to stop them doing it again?

Same with Deep Breath, and as they were both very successful I suspect the answer is....they will.

I think they will do it again too.

It seems the key difference that allowed this was that they were also available to watch on TV at the same time - so no TV license payers were forced to pay extra to see them at the cinema.

Why? When it has Touchstone and Marvel, both producing top notch live Action stuff. Obviously, YMMV...

You might want to wait on that front - they are producing a Live action version of Winnie The Pooh... Christopher Robin has to go back to Hundred Acre Wood as a grown up (so far so Alice in Wonderland). Let's hope they don't use the real adult Christopher Robin as inspiration, as he hated Winnie The Pooh and the commersialisation of his childhood...

Or rather, let's hope they do, it won't be so mawkish and insipid!

(btw - I actually like Disney. Especially Pixar...)