What do you think?
Rate this book
Doctor Who Reference Guides #5
Doctor Who: The Nth Doctor - An In-depth Study of the Films That Almost Were
Over the last three decades, several film production companies have held the rights to make a Doctor Who movie. To this day, intense speculation surrounds the details of these unmade productions. Here, for the first time, is an in-depth exploration of the Doctor Who films that almost were, including detailed synopses and extracts from the scripts themselves, interviews with the writers, behind-the-scenes articles explaining how these productions came to be, why the contemplated films were never shot, and the role played by stars such as Leonard Nimoy and Steven Spielberg.The Nth Doctor is a lot of funby showing the process of how Doctor Who might have started again, we can get a lot of insight about why it is one of our favorite programs.Michael Lee, Minnesota Doctor Who Information ListI really enjoyed this look at what Doctor Who might have been. The Nth Doctor is a nice addition to the range of non-fiction Who and covers an area about which little was previously known.David Howe, Howes Who
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 16, 1997
4 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Marc Lofficier
404 books23 followersJean-Marc Lofficier is a French author of books about films and television programs, as well as numerous comic books and translations of a number of animation screenplays. He usually collaborates with his wife, Randy Lofficier
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
Read
June 19, 2019It’s 2018 and Doctor Who is a beloved cultural phenomenon once more. Some of its most passionate teenage fans have never known a world without it.
The wilderness years of 1989-2005, between cancellation and renewal, feel increasingly like a historical footnote. That decade-and-a-half with one (very divisive) TV movie, a mountain of fringe spinoff media and a general air of suspended hope and melancholy: it’s all just a rough patch with a happy ending.
Which makes this hyper-specific 1997 reference book simultaneously far more interesting and far more niche than when it was first published.
It turns out this was a very busy period for assorted writers and producers hoping to revive Doctor Who on the big screen. This guide breaks down the many possible stories we could have seen had things gone even a little differently.
Some of these synopses are exciting and easy to imagine playing in some parallel universe cinema. (The hypothetical Pierce Brosnan Doctor directed by Leonard Nimoy was especially fun to envision.) Other sections are a bit of a slog, especially when we get repetitive variations and rewrites of the same story, included more for (admirable) historical completion than pure entertainment value.
To a reader who (a) fell under the original series’ spell as a preschooler, (b) spent the entire 90s feeling its absence and (c) now loves reading about pop-culture what-ifs and how-the-sausage-is-made trivia, this offered some very fun and fascinating context. Your mileage may vary.
The wilderness years of 1989-2005, between cancellation and renewal, feel increasingly like a historical footnote. That decade-and-a-half with one (very divisive) TV movie, a mountain of fringe spinoff media and a general air of suspended hope and melancholy: it’s all just a rough patch with a happy ending.
Which makes this hyper-specific 1997 reference book simultaneously far more interesting and far more niche than when it was first published.
It turns out this was a very busy period for assorted writers and producers hoping to revive Doctor Who on the big screen. This guide breaks down the many possible stories we could have seen had things gone even a little differently.
Some of these synopses are exciting and easy to imagine playing in some parallel universe cinema. (The hypothetical Pierce Brosnan Doctor directed by Leonard Nimoy was especially fun to envision.) Other sections are a bit of a slog, especially when we get repetitive variations and rewrites of the same story, included more for (admirable) historical completion than pure entertainment value.
To a reader who (a) fell under the original series’ spell as a preschooler, (b) spent the entire 90s feeling its absence and (c) now loves reading about pop-culture what-ifs and how-the-sausage-is-made trivia, this offered some very fun and fascinating context. Your mileage may vary.
November 25, 2021
Here’s one for your niche Doctor Who book collection: a guide to the films that were almost made before the Paul McGann one in 1996. Focusing mainly on providing a synopsis for each effort, some written by the original authors, it’s at its most interesting in the brief behind-the-scenes text that precedes each one, and occasional interviews (both of which nowadays would be the focus of the book). Some interesting names orbit the show, such as Leonard Nimoy, and it’s fascinating to see that there was some truth in the always swirling cauldron of movie rumours. But as a book, The Nth Doctor is a mixed bag.
With synopses, too many or too much emphasis on these can leave me gasping for air (such as in the guide to unlicensed audio adventures, Justyce Served), and that’s particularly the case here. At the same time it’s not very in depth, and information overload. The first half of the book is comprised of different drafts rather than different projects, so you end up reading one after another with broadly similar plot beats and variants of the same characters. It becomes somewhat maddening to wade through; after the fourth consecutive Johnny Byrne effort on the same movie I just started skipping to the end. I never want to hear the name “Varnax” again.
Thankfully the rest of the scripts are more varied, offering first a much more accessible adventure story featuring Amelia Earhart, then the infamous 30th anniversary script The Dark Dimension (which would have been very appealing to fans, and impenetrable to everyone else), plus a couple of efforts that indirectly led to the Paul McGann film. In these, worryingly, the Doctor is characterised as a rather innocent and bland figure obsessed by his heritage (and not so much the kind of stuff he normally gets up to in Doctor Who); reading them made me glad that the TV Movie meagrely returned him to form (half-human and “Who am I?” notwithstanding) and that Russell T Davies abandoned such dull questions altogether. Few of the scripts seem to crack the idea of mass appeal the way the new series did, tending towards rather dry, minutiae-obsessed sci-fi, and they don’t really sell the idea of Doctor Who either. It would be fair to say you can’t fully judge a script by its synopsis, but I still don’t think we missed much with these projects.
Besides the synopses the author offers brief reviews, extensive (and somewhat futile) continuity notes linking these films to the series, the TV Movie and each other, and a few synopses of his own. It really only offers a glimpse into the movie-making world, being far more interested in how it all chimes with such-and-such TV story from the 70s, which rarely would have been a concern for the movie-makers.
The Nth Doctor offers some context for very interested fans, but with so much of the focus on plot beats and (nyurgh) continuity it’s unlikely to appeal to anyone else.
Actual rating: 2.5 stars
With synopses, too many or too much emphasis on these can leave me gasping for air (such as in the guide to unlicensed audio adventures, Justyce Served), and that’s particularly the case here. At the same time it’s not very in depth, and information overload. The first half of the book is comprised of different drafts rather than different projects, so you end up reading one after another with broadly similar plot beats and variants of the same characters. It becomes somewhat maddening to wade through; after the fourth consecutive Johnny Byrne effort on the same movie I just started skipping to the end. I never want to hear the name “Varnax” again.
Thankfully the rest of the scripts are more varied, offering first a much more accessible adventure story featuring Amelia Earhart, then the infamous 30th anniversary script The Dark Dimension (which would have been very appealing to fans, and impenetrable to everyone else), plus a couple of efforts that indirectly led to the Paul McGann film. In these, worryingly, the Doctor is characterised as a rather innocent and bland figure obsessed by his heritage (and not so much the kind of stuff he normally gets up to in Doctor Who); reading them made me glad that the TV Movie meagrely returned him to form (half-human and “Who am I?” notwithstanding) and that Russell T Davies abandoned such dull questions altogether. Few of the scripts seem to crack the idea of mass appeal the way the new series did, tending towards rather dry, minutiae-obsessed sci-fi, and they don’t really sell the idea of Doctor Who either. It would be fair to say you can’t fully judge a script by its synopsis, but I still don’t think we missed much with these projects.
Besides the synopses the author offers brief reviews, extensive (and somewhat futile) continuity notes linking these films to the series, the TV Movie and each other, and a few synopses of his own. It really only offers a glimpse into the movie-making world, being far more interested in how it all chimes with such-and-such TV story from the 70s, which rarely would have been a concern for the movie-makers.
The Nth Doctor offers some context for very interested fans, but with so much of the focus on plot beats and (nyurgh) continuity it’s unlikely to appeal to anyone else.
Actual rating: 2.5 stars
October 24, 2019
While certainly an important record of these scripts, at the end of the day you can only judge on the content.
The scripts are obviously variable. The Daltenreys draft by Mark Ezra reads like a 50s pulp story come to life, and not in a good way. That's before you even get to how much of a flagrant knockoff the villain is of Star Trek II's Khan, except without an equivalent Space Seed to set him up. The endless different drafts under Johnny Byrne all blend together in one big haze of rote cliches. The draft with a Native American character companion was the most memorable, but it was still a by-the-numbers 80s sci-fi romp closer to cheap crap like the Cannon Masters of the Universe movie or Beastmaster II than any of the actually good ones. Competent, but unimaginative.
Then again, it's hard to say it's that unimaginative in comparison to the Segal-produced drafts. Before that though, there's (Lost in) The Dark Dimension, which even at script stage is already straining under the weight of all the fanservice and limited budget, but at least manages to keep all the plates spinning in a good-but-not-great layout for an anniversary adventure. There's also the last gasp of the Daltenreys/Greenlight/Coast to Coast/Lumiere film project, with a brand new draft thankfully removed from the earlier drafts. As you'd expect from a script written by the co-writer of Star Trek VI, it's solid stuff. Fans would no doubt have cried foul at the addition of a pre-Hartnell regeneration, but given the well-integrated and sizable cameo role for the Fourth Doctor they may have been placated. The romance with Amelia Earhardt is extremely superfluous, but it's by far the least egregious of all the various draft's eyerollingly shoehorned-in hypodermic shots of The Notgays.
As for the Segal-led drafts themselves... I'll never understand Hollywood's need to sand off the edges of niche and idiosyncratic material like Doctor Who and warp it into fitting the generic "Marketable™" mould. If you wanted to write the most intellectually barren hackwork sci-fi pilot you wanted, that's fine, but I don't know why you'd bother going to all the trouble to get the paperwork sorted so that you could paste names of a pre-existing franchise onto things. When you've changed the Daleks into cookie-cutter shapeshifting henchmen a la the Terminator, you know that things are irrevocably fucked.
As I said at the beginning, this is an important work of preservation in keeping these unmade Doctor Who scripts documented for future research. However, when it comes to judging it on it's own merits, how can I be positive about it? The scripts range from laughably weak to weakly laughable, the footnotes are obsessed over trying to headcanon completely unrelated reboot scripts into one coherent timeline with the BBC series (which I suppose should be par for the course with material this insular and niche, but it's still a level of tedious pedantry too anal retentive for even me to stand), and the reviews are blandly positive in that special way shared only with games reviewers who never give a game lower than an 8/10 for fear of offending the corporations making it. The little nuggets of contextual historical information before each draft is great, as is getting to know things I'd never thought I'd learn like the exact story sequence that Nimoy was going to shoot in order to get around the approaching rights expiration, or the story context for the script extract McGann performed in his original audition tape. However, they make up a comparatively small percentage of the book as a whole.
So, really, it's a book that should absolutely exist but absolutely shouldn't be read.
The scripts are obviously variable. The Daltenreys draft by Mark Ezra reads like a 50s pulp story come to life, and not in a good way. That's before you even get to how much of a flagrant knockoff the villain is of Star Trek II's Khan, except without an equivalent Space Seed to set him up. The endless different drafts under Johnny Byrne all blend together in one big haze of rote cliches. The draft with a Native American character companion was the most memorable, but it was still a by-the-numbers 80s sci-fi romp closer to cheap crap like the Cannon Masters of the Universe movie or Beastmaster II than any of the actually good ones. Competent, but unimaginative.
Then again, it's hard to say it's that unimaginative in comparison to the Segal-produced drafts. Before that though, there's (Lost in) The Dark Dimension, which even at script stage is already straining under the weight of all the fanservice and limited budget, but at least manages to keep all the plates spinning in a good-but-not-great layout for an anniversary adventure. There's also the last gasp of the Daltenreys/Greenlight/Coast to Coast/Lumiere film project, with a brand new draft thankfully removed from the earlier drafts. As you'd expect from a script written by the co-writer of Star Trek VI, it's solid stuff. Fans would no doubt have cried foul at the addition of a pre-Hartnell regeneration, but given the well-integrated and sizable cameo role for the Fourth Doctor they may have been placated. The romance with Amelia Earhardt is extremely superfluous, but it's by far the least egregious of all the various draft's eyerollingly shoehorned-in hypodermic shots of The Notgays.
As for the Segal-led drafts themselves... I'll never understand Hollywood's need to sand off the edges of niche and idiosyncratic material like Doctor Who and warp it into fitting the generic "Marketable™" mould. If you wanted to write the most intellectually barren hackwork sci-fi pilot you wanted, that's fine, but I don't know why you'd bother going to all the trouble to get the paperwork sorted so that you could paste names of a pre-existing franchise onto things. When you've changed the Daleks into cookie-cutter shapeshifting henchmen a la the Terminator, you know that things are irrevocably fucked.
As I said at the beginning, this is an important work of preservation in keeping these unmade Doctor Who scripts documented for future research. However, when it comes to judging it on it's own merits, how can I be positive about it? The scripts range from laughably weak to weakly laughable, the footnotes are obsessed over trying to headcanon completely unrelated reboot scripts into one coherent timeline with the BBC series (which I suppose should be par for the course with material this insular and niche, but it's still a level of tedious pedantry too anal retentive for even me to stand), and the reviews are blandly positive in that special way shared only with games reviewers who never give a game lower than an 8/10 for fear of offending the corporations making it. The little nuggets of contextual historical information before each draft is great, as is getting to know things I'd never thought I'd learn like the exact story sequence that Nimoy was going to shoot in order to get around the approaching rights expiration, or the story context for the script extract McGann performed in his original audition tape. However, they make up a comparatively small percentage of the book as a whole.
So, really, it's a book that should absolutely exist but absolutely shouldn't be read.
January 15, 2022
What an absolutely ridiculous but entertaining book. I cannot say I would have found some of the latter proposals at all endearing, but the book itself is an authoritative guide to the various proposals, revealing details I simply hadn't been aware of. It is a valuable and authoritative source on this period of Who history.
It's a shame many of the treatments tried to Americanize or mythologise the Doctor; while myth is certainly a part of NuWho's take on the Doctor, it's much more organic and less overtly Campbellian than in the later proposal detailed in this book. The script extracts are very welcome, though, and contribute to a fascinating dissection of what would (and would not) have worked in a mid-90s context. There's a constant sense of not trying to stray too far from Classic canon, yet also a purposeful (if perhaps a little uneasy) attempt to forge a new path for the franchise. In the end, we got a good TV Movie (1996) - and the lovely Paul McGann. Some of these proposals may have worked, and indeed 'The Dark Dimension' has had legs in fan circles, but it's otherwise surprising the other ones have not received as much fan interest.
Where I find the book itself gets overreaches a little is with the various footnote attempts to place the various scripts into the 1963-89 canon. Nowadays, I suppose, such things as alternative timelines and multiverses are much more commonplace on screen. Much of what is discussed here can, indeed, fit within the Timeless Child storyline in NuWho if you were so inclined. The Doctor's struggle with their identity and heritage was clearly something of interest to writers in the 1990s.
It's a shame many of the treatments tried to Americanize or mythologise the Doctor; while myth is certainly a part of NuWho's take on the Doctor, it's much more organic and less overtly Campbellian than in the later proposal detailed in this book. The script extracts are very welcome, though, and contribute to a fascinating dissection of what would (and would not) have worked in a mid-90s context. There's a constant sense of not trying to stray too far from Classic canon, yet also a purposeful (if perhaps a little uneasy) attempt to forge a new path for the franchise. In the end, we got a good TV Movie (1996) - and the lovely Paul McGann. Some of these proposals may have worked, and indeed 'The Dark Dimension' has had legs in fan circles, but it's otherwise surprising the other ones have not received as much fan interest.
Where I find the book itself gets overreaches a little is with the various footnote attempts to place the various scripts into the 1963-89 canon. Nowadays, I suppose, such things as alternative timelines and multiverses are much more commonplace on screen. Much of what is discussed here can, indeed, fit within the Timeless Child storyline in NuWho if you were so inclined. The Doctor's struggle with their identity and heritage was clearly something of interest to writers in the 1990s.
October 14, 2018
On the whole, this was an intriguing, well written look at the different attempts to revive Doctor Who on both the big and small screens in the late 80s and early 90s. Some of the film concepts were better than others, the later Johnny Byrne drafts and the Denny Martin Flinn script sounding particularly good, while the different TV movies/backdoor pilots read as very lackluster. Either way, they were interesting to read about, even for someone like myself who is relatively uneducated in Who canon.
The book's biggest flaw to me is that some of the stuff the Lofficiers talk about in the footnotes can get irritating quickly. They insist trying to reconcile every single script not only with the original BBC series, but also with each other, even when that is blatantly impossible. It honestly starts to feel like fan fiction after a while. They also regularly cite different Who serials, not just by name, but with a series of alphanumeric codes that meant precisely nothing to me and were never elaborated upon in the rest of the book. Another, smaller issue is how the reviews they write for each script are all uniformly positive and complimentary, even regarding the ones that go for trite plot devices like making the Doctor and the Master half brothers. That just rubbed me the wrong way.
That being said, this is still a very, very good book, and highly recommended not only for Doctor Who fans, but for film fans like myself who enjoy reading about unrealized projects.
The book's biggest flaw to me is that some of the stuff the Lofficiers talk about in the footnotes can get irritating quickly. They insist trying to reconcile every single script not only with the original BBC series, but also with each other, even when that is blatantly impossible. It honestly starts to feel like fan fiction after a while. They also regularly cite different Who serials, not just by name, but with a series of alphanumeric codes that meant precisely nothing to me and were never elaborated upon in the rest of the book. Another, smaller issue is how the reviews they write for each script are all uniformly positive and complimentary, even regarding the ones that go for trite plot devices like making the Doctor and the Master half brothers. That just rubbed me the wrong way.
That being said, this is still a very, very good book, and highly recommended not only for Doctor Who fans, but for film fans like myself who enjoy reading about unrealized projects.
December 27, 2020
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3537950.html
This is the story of several film treatments for Doctor Who written between 1987 and 1994 by Mark Ezra, Johnny Byrne, Denny Martin Flinn, the not-yet-disgraced Adrian Rigelsford, John Leekley and Robert DeLaurentis. Apart from Rigelsford, these are all serious writers with serious records, and it's interesting to see how the pressures of cinematic production and consumption formed what now seems the inevitable Philip Segal end product of 1996. Various plot elements came and went - one can see some threads emerging in New Who of both the RTD and Moffat eras; some of the outlines are clearly a four-part TV story written as a film script. It's interesting that the one-off female sidekick and the streetwise kid sidekick became established at a relatively early stage. My jaw dropped at the brief involvement of Leonard Nimoy, which I don't think I'd known about, but I was less surprised at the crucial role of the Gallifrey One convention in the story.
Anyway, I think this really is for completists only. Normally when I say that, it's about something that isn't very good; in this case it's because none of these scripts was ever made, and none is likely to be made now, so they are of limited relevance to the wider history of Who.
This is the story of several film treatments for Doctor Who written between 1987 and 1994 by Mark Ezra, Johnny Byrne, Denny Martin Flinn, the not-yet-disgraced Adrian Rigelsford, John Leekley and Robert DeLaurentis. Apart from Rigelsford, these are all serious writers with serious records, and it's interesting to see how the pressures of cinematic production and consumption formed what now seems the inevitable Philip Segal end product of 1996. Various plot elements came and went - one can see some threads emerging in New Who of both the RTD and Moffat eras; some of the outlines are clearly a four-part TV story written as a film script. It's interesting that the one-off female sidekick and the streetwise kid sidekick became established at a relatively early stage. My jaw dropped at the brief involvement of Leonard Nimoy, which I don't think I'd known about, but I was less surprised at the crucial role of the Gallifrey One convention in the story.
Anyway, I think this really is for completists only. Normally when I say that, it's about something that isn't very good; in this case it's because none of these scripts was ever made, and none is likely to be made now, so they are of limited relevance to the wider history of Who.
July 6, 2024
Коли починаєш читати, варто тримати в голові, що обкладинка тоді трохи бреше і це не прям "in-depth study", а більше розвідка.
В принципі кожен блок про окремий проєкт виглядає так:
1. Бекґраунд створення (місцями дуже бідний, а місцями Лофьєр залітає кудись не туди)
2. С��жет фільму
3. Коментарі Лофьєра (доволі суб'єктивна штука, але автор сам у вступі це декларує і каже, що якщо хочете то ігноруйте тож окей)
4. Рев'ю автора щодо потенційного фільму (теж суб'єктивне, але може бути)
5. Інтерв'ю з кимось з командою. Найчастіше це якраз сценаристи це фільмів і тоді це має сенс, проте в The Dark Dimension інтерв'ю було з дизайнером, а Лофьєр питав в нього питання за сценарій, вибір касту, та продюсерські штуки, яких дизайнер явно не знав, що логічно.
Основний плюс книги — сюжети вже не знятих фільмів. Правда знайомитись з фільмами Ліклі та ДеЛаурентіса краще через книгу Doctor Who Regeneration, там і подача краще і Біблія Ліклі наведена повністю, на відміну від The Nth Doctor і бекґраунд цих двух фільмів наведений повністю.
В принципі The Nth Doctor книга прям дуже на любителя франшизи, але котрий не очікує in-depth study від цього видання)
В принципі кожен блок про окремий проєкт виглядає так:
1. Бекґраунд створення (місцями дуже бідний, а місцями Лофьєр залітає кудись не туди)
2. С��жет фільму
3. Коментарі Лофьєра (доволі суб'єктивна штука, але автор сам у вступі це декларує і каже, що якщо хочете то ігноруйте тож окей)
4. Рев'ю автора щодо потенційного фільму (теж суб'єктивне, але може бути)
5. Інтерв'ю з кимось з командою. Найчастіше це якраз сценаристи це фільмів і тоді це має сенс, проте в The Dark Dimension інтерв'ю було з дизайнером, а Лофьєр питав в нього питання за сценарій, вибір касту, та продюсерські штуки, яких дизайнер явно не знав, що логічно.
Основний плюс книги — сюжети вже не знятих фільмів. Правда знайомитись з фільмами Ліклі та ДеЛаурентіса краще через книгу Doctor Who Regeneration, там і подача краще і Біблія Ліклі наведена повністю, на відміну від The Nth Doctor і бекґраунд цих двух фільмів наведений повністю.
В принципі The Nth Doctor книга прям дуже на любителя франшизи, але котрий не очікує in-depth study від цього видання)
August 12, 2019
For those of us "Doctor Who" fans who lived through the wilderness years -- especially between 1989 and 1996 -- we remember with great frustration the various proposals and dead-ends to bring the series back to TV screens. In this book, you'll find a straightforward & easy-to-read presentation of most of the different proposals to resurrect "Doctor Who" during that seven year period. I would have liked a bit more critical analysis, but overall this is a fascinating look at what could have been...and what could have been was certainly, at times, outrageous. My own personal favourite section of the book was its examination of what would have been the abortive 30th anniversary story "The Dark Dimension".
March 23, 2023
An interesting look at what might have been. Considering the extent that some of the unmade scripts went to explore every aspect of the Doctor's past, it's perhaps a blessing that they never got made.
An entertaining and detailed read, and one that makes you eternally grateful for how things actually turned out for the series.
An entertaining and detailed read, and one that makes you eternally grateful for how things actually turned out for the series.
November 19, 2020
Makes me realise we have a reason to be thankful for the Paul McGann doctor who. It could've been a lot worse!
Also shows how good a job Russell T Davies did in bringing the show back and it actually being good.
Also shows how good a job Russell T Davies did in bringing the show back and it actually being good.
June 7, 2020
i learned some interesting facts and i recommend this book
September 29, 2014
The original Dr Who TV show was canceled in 1989 and got a not terribly successful made for TV movie in 1996; this book covers the various written and discarded screenplays prepared for the movie, and while I found it quite interesting, it's probably only for Dr Who supernerds. I could have done without the "Script Review" section of the book as each script is praised highly, even the one I had trouble keeping awake though (I was more of a fan of the insane script where the Doctor goes around throwing people into vats of acid and killing them with karate chops). Also, I'm still not sure how a human and a Gallifreyan can have a kid given all the regeneration energy in a Time Lord. (Note: Please do not comment on this review/message me telling me how; I have precious little space left in my brain as is.)
October 3, 2013
Possibly inspired by the success of the Star Trek movie franchise, people sought to continue Doctor Who in feature-length format even before the series was cancelled in 1989. This book outlines the seven(ish) unsuccessful efforts to do so between 1987 and 1994, providing background information, interviews, and script excerpts and synopses. Unsurprisingly, most of them were awful even compared to the one that eventually did get made.
There's no real reason a normal person should want to read this book, but it delivers exactly what it promises. Obsessive classic Who fans should enjoy it.
There's no real reason a normal person should want to read this book, but it delivers exactly what it promises. Obsessive classic Who fans should enjoy it.
June 16, 2010
While Doctor Who was off the air between 1989 and 1996, many attempts were made to bring the show back, mainly as a big budget movie - names like Spielberg were often bandied about. This book gives us the inside story on these would-be adventures, and reading it we can only be relieved that none of the suggested stories were made.
October 2, 2015
Before the BBC begin the latest series, different scripts were developed in making a big effort to bring Doctor Who to the big movie screen. This is that story.
A true hard core Doctor Who fan would enjoy reading this account of what could had been but never happened...
Donald Sutherland was one actor considered as was Pierce Brosnan in the main role of The Doctor.
A true hard core Doctor Who fan would enjoy reading this account of what could had been but never happened...
Donald Sutherland was one actor considered as was Pierce Brosnan in the main role of The Doctor.
May 6, 2009
A collection of story outlines from doctors that never were.
Chronicling the various attempts to relaunch the franchsise from 1989 to the 1996 tv movie, the nth doctor managers to encapsulate that big question that every doctor who fan likes to ask themselves, What if?
Chronicling the various attempts to relaunch the franchsise from 1989 to the 1996 tv movie, the nth doctor managers to encapsulate that big question that every doctor who fan likes to ask themselves, What if?
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews