The TV Movie

Doctor Who - The Movie is a curious part of Doctor Who history. Intended to launch a new TV series produced by the BBC, Fox and Universal, instead due to poor viewing figures in America it has become something of a missing link between the classic and new series. So what was at fault?

Well, it feels like it was a mistake to include Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor at the beginning of the movie. This would no doubt have been confusing for new viewers who didn't previously follow the series; the TV movie did, after all, air seven years after the last episode of the classic series. The mistake was later corrected when Russell T Davies brought the show back in 2005, when he opted to start without a regeneration.

It's a shame that executive producer Paul Segal made the decision to include Sylvester McCoy although it's understandable. He is a Whovian after all, so the temptation to include a regeneration sequence was likely too much to resist. Overall, he did make a great movie though with an engaging plot and great actors.

The plot of the Master trying to steal the Doctor's remaining regenerations and nearly causing the end of the world by opening the Eye of Harmony is a good one that feels largely in character for the Master. Paul McGann and Daphne Ashbrook are fantastic as the Doctor and Grace Holloway too; so believable in their roles that many wish to see them reunited in the form of a Big Finish audio. I don't even mind the idea that the Doctor is half human on his mother's side; it makes sense given his fascination with Earth. My only real complaint besides what probably didn't work for new viewers is at times the Master appears more Count Dracula than the Master himself; this is largely down to Eric Roberts' performance, who seems too theatrical and hams it up a little.

Overall, the Doctor Who TV Movie is a great film that should have been successful but is let down by a couple of poor decisions like bringing Sylvester McCoy back as the 7th Doctor for a regeneration scene and Eric Roberts playing the Master too much like Dracula.

The TV Movie isn't that bad, it's 100% average. The Master is kind of awful in this one, The writing really did let it down, however I enjoyed it more than I expected. After multiple repeats, I can see a load of flaws in this one, however I do think it's enjoyable to some extent. I mean, even if you don't like it, you can admit that the precredits were awesome... at least.. However I would be lying if I didn't say Mcgann owned he screen whenever he was on it, he slipped very well into the role and had some really great interactions with Grace. over all the story is crappy, the plots meh, the acting is good, the replay is bad but it's not the worst thing ever.

Personally, I don't think it's too bad. I think Paul McGann's performance is decent (Although not enough to do him justice); the Master and Grace were pretty bad, alright I'll admit that and I think the plot is ok but far from brilliant. I mean, it's not the worst story in the world but all I'm going to say is better leave Dr Who for British. It's like if Britain started making Family Guy, it just wouldn't be as funny. That's all.

This TV movie was practically a guide on how not to revive Doctor Who. Still, there were some parts of this that were actually good:

1) The pre-Credits sequence was actually good in terms of setting up the plot and the Master and Doctor. It catches viewers and intrigues particularly if they've never seen Doctor Who before. Twas a pity that the backstory didn't end there.

2) The TARDIS design had some intriguing elements. Yeah, it was more than a tad crowded, but there's a lot to like in the hominess and atmosphere.

3) The Regeneration effect was a huge leap forward and the scene itself was done with some humor.a

4) Paul McGann really does his best with the material he's given. Even with all the problems with the plot, McGann shows great charisma and what a great Doctor he'd become even if that was just by audio.

What's bad:

1) The TV movie was supposed to appeal to new viewers. Instead, it really tosses them at the deep end of the pool. We have Time Lords, Gallifrey, regeneration, the Eye of Harmony, the Master, and a reference to Daleks for good measure. It seems that the writer never grasped that all of these elements only really matter if we are actually engaged in the characters. Instead, we got dumped with backstory that's really confusing to people who've never seen Doctor Who before.

2) Bringing the Seventh Doctor back to have him killed by medical malpractice. Really?

3) "The Doctor is Half Human." And so the TV movie managed to annoy long time fans while confusing new fans.

4) The story featured two one-off Companions in Grace and Chang Lee and gave them a lot of air time for characters who would never appear in Doctor Who again.

This story is almost the polar opposite of the approach that Russell T. Davies would successfully take nearly a decade later with, "Rose." In the TV Movie, we spend the first 20 minutes with the Seventh Doctor, we're given dozens of show concepts and tropes but with little reason to care about them and we're given a Companion who doesn't even end up travelling with the Doctor. In Rose, we're given hints about who the Doctor is as plot practically cloaks him in a cape of mystery. New viewers don't even learn before the last moment that the Doctor can travel in time. We learn about the Companion he'll travel with for two series and her family and friends.

Because of it's better design and effects, and Paul McGann's charisma and talent, the TV Movie is an improvement on the two previous stories that introduced a new Doctor but only just. And when you consider those previous two stories were, "The Twin Dilemma" and "Mark of the Rani," that's faint praise indeed.