Doctor Who In 2024 Owes More To The Failed 1990s Movie Than You Realize

Despite the failure of Doctor Who‘s 1996 movie, the show’s modern era just wouldn’t be the same if not for certain contributions from Paul McGann’s brief spell leading the franchise as the Eighth Doctor. The show’s 2004 revival with Christopher Eccleston marked a strong change in tone when compared with Doctor Who‘s classic era, despite all existing canon remaining in place. In several ways, McGann’s movie falls somewhere between the original run and the version that’s around today, but it’s certainly more similar to the newer episodes than the older ones.

Of all the actors to play the Doctor, Paul McGann’s tenure is among the shortest. The feature-length production in which he starred was a clear attempt to bring the franchise out of dormancy. However, despite McGann’s brilliant performance, the movie’s divisive script resulted in many fans rejecting it, and Doctor Who didn’t come back in any meaningful way for almost another decade. McGann has since reprised his role as the Eight in the main show, one short, and several audio adventures. Although the fan base seemingly wasn’t ready in 1996, the movie has also made a surprisingly positive impact.

Doctor Who’s Modern Era Uses Many Ideas Introduced By The 1990s Movie

The BBC’s 2004 revival wouldn’t have been the same without McGann’s movie

1996’s Doctor Who: The Movie was a backdoor pilot for a new age of the show. The long-running British sci-fi franchise was quickly Americanized during the movie’s 90-minute run, which may have contributed to long-standing fans not engaging with it quite as passionately as the show proper. That being said, it has never been de-canonized, so all events within the movie remain relevant to this day – if not also a little confusing and nonsensical at times. The additions to Doctor Who‘s legacy, however, go far beyond the movie’s polarizing worldbuilding and extend into how the show continues to be made.

Firstly, there’s the story format of Doctor Who‘s modern era. In the original run, stories were almost exclusively spread out over around four episodes. The serialized narratives took weeks to unfold, whereas the story of Doctor Who: The Movie was immediately consumable. Modern Doctor Who episodes aren’t as long as the movie, but they’re still much more similar to McGann’s debut than they are to the classic serials.

There’s also the matter of how the Doctor was portrayed in 1996. Before the movie, the Time Lord was often characterized as pretty unfeeling toward the plight and emotions of his companions. He wasn’t evil, but he was more than a little tactless. McGann’s Doctor was much more in touch with his emotions, and his iteration of the character was the first to engage romantically with the movie’s companion, Daphne Ashbrook’s Grace Holloway. Since Grace, the Doctor has gone on to be romantically involved with other characters.

Finally, Doctor Who: The Movie was incredibly cinematic when held up against older franchise installments. While the film’s budget was reportedly only around the $5 million mark, that was a huge amount more than had been spent on any of the serials the BBC had previously produced. That level of care regarding Doctor Who‘s aesthetic has carried over into the revival era, with the show’s dynamic and exciting camera work standing out as a huge appeal. Included in this point is the movie’s title sequence, which could be viewed as the blueprint for the TV intros that have followed it.

Doctor Who’s 1990s Movie Was Flawed, But Still Deserves Credit

McGann’s Doctor Who debut shouldn’t be criticized too harshly

Doctor Who‘s first and only movie is very far from perfect. As well as introducing bizarre pieces of canon – such as the Doctor being half-human – the 1996 effort twisted other aspects of the franchise’s world almost to the point of being unrecognizable. It has some good moments, but it’s a largely awkward viewing experience. Despite all of its downsides, Doctor Who is still better off overall for the movie’s existence.

Even though it ultimately flopped, the Doctor Who movie did create a buzz among the fan base, which proved a comeback wasn’t a bad idea so long after the show’s cancelation in 1989. Plus, the film should receive a huge amount of credit for not completely rebooting the franchise. Beginning the story with Sylvester McCoy’s Seventh Doctor and allowing him to regenerate into Paul McGann was incredibly respectful. The franchise continues to benefit from the presence of its classic Doctors from its past, which is an advantage the show would lack if the movie had done a complete overhaul.

Doctor Who’s Movie Was The Bridge Between The Classic & Modern Eras

The Eighth Doctor did a lot of the heavy lifting when it came to updating the character

Paul McGann’s first outing as the Doctor proves the franchise wasn’t ready to continue in 1996. Although it boasted many updated improvements, the movie retained several of the worst aspects of Doctor Who‘s original run that led to its cancelation years earlier. Because of this, Doctor Who: The Movie comes across as its own thing, not recognizably aligned with the classic era or the post-2004 episodes.

However, without the movie being produced, the show might never returned at all. The project allowed the BBC to see what still worked from the classic era, which changes were effective, and which ones were poorly made. At the time, perhaps fans weren’t ready for the fictitious sci-fi universe to be altered so drastically. To modern Doctor Who audiences, the 1996 movie seems much more recognizable as the newer version of the franchise – albeit with a few remnants of the old regime.