The Doctor Who Movie (1996) was the first completed attempt to return the classic Science-Fiction Series to televsion in seventeen years. In 1989, the Doctor (as played by Sylvester McCoy) and Ace (played by Sophie Aldred) walked off to the TARDIS to have further adventures, but not to be seen again. 

And that’s how it remainder on screen for the next eight years.  Off screen, many things were happening.  Doctor Who Magazine continued making comic strip adventures for the Seventh Doctor and Ace.  Virgin Publishing gained the rights to create the very successful “New natures” series of books.  Unofficially fan groups and production companies created short movies and audio series which attempted to fill the need new Doctor Who content.

Also behind the scenes were discussions around a Doctor Who movie.  Discussions around a possible American co-production for Doctor who commenced in the 1970’s. In the 1980’s Walt Disney Corporation attempted to purchase the entire franchise in the early 1980’s. In 1992-1994 the BBC and Steven Spielberg’s production company had intense negotiations about a new co-production.  This developed into a rebooted series, disregarding the previous series. Instead, the story line featured the Doctor searching for his long lost parents while eluding his half-brother, the Master. This original plan changed again into becoming was eventually changed again to be a single ninety minute film made for television, continuing directly from the 1989 tv series.

The movie was completed and broadcasted in 1996. This movie remained the last official piece of Doctor Who being broadcast from 1989 until Christopher Eccleston appeared as the Doctor in 2005.  However, it was never meant to be that way. Instead the movie was hoped to lead to further movies, and potentially a series co-produced across England and America. 

So…why didn’t it?  Why did this attempted relaunch of the series in 1996 fail to lead to anything further? Why did the relaunch in 2004 result very quickly in a successful series which has continued until the present day?

These were the sort of questions I asked myself after a recent re-watch of the movie. By the end I could see a fairly good idea of why the movie failed to completely relaunch Doctor Who for the modern era. 

Plot Summary

Respose – Visuals

The sets are so detailed, and the picture so clear. It looks more cinematic in its detail than anything the series had provided thus far. I love the classic series, but visually they cannot compare to the opening shots of this movie. And that hits you as you start watching it. But that’s an American co-production for you-even their worst television series look better than anyone else’s television.

Initial Fan Reaction

Not this is not the worst television series.  It’s not even the worst doctor who story, and it’s surprises me how much hate it gets. I have watched all existing Doctor Who stories, and only ever hated one story. I have found some stories boring. Others I find had plots that didn’t make sense. However, I never hated them and often could find something to enjoy.

However, for a long time, the fan community hated the Doctor Who TV movie.  The TV series “Queer as Folk” joked that Paul McGann’s incarnation of the Doctor didn’t count. There was substantial criticism of the romantic references between the Doctor and Grace.  When a series failed to materialise, a later planned relaunch suggested forgetting the movie ever happened. 

So I re-watched the TV movie aware of the stigma but also not easily hating anything. And, to me, it’s not a horrible story, but it’s not a great story either. If this story had been in the middle of a series, it would be a completely acceptable standard story. The movie in this context would be an acceptable filler story, not a masterpiece.

But this story needed to be impressive, not just average. New audiences needed to be won over by the story on first viewing to for a series to proceed.

This shows partially why “Rose”was successful in comparison. The TV Movie needed to get everything perfect first time. “Rose” in comparison just needed to get people to gladly watch one more episode. “Rose” could build an audience, the movie needed to win an audience. The movie needed to get everyone demanding more episodes. It needed to attract not just fans, but newcomers to the series as well. And the film is not strong enough to achieve that.

Cons – No Central Character to Follow

I wondered while I was watching this – who are we meant to be following in this story? The first voice we hear is the eighth doctor giving an opening narration, but he doesn’t physically appear yet. The Film focuses instead on a largely silent Seventh doctor, until he is shot by a gang. Shortly afterwards, he changes into a new person without explanation. Fans may know this is the same character. New views to Doctor Who would be entirely lost.  

Of course, the other human characters are easier to identify with.  But Grace is introduced long after the seventh Doctor is shot.  Change Lee, who witnesses the Doctor be shot, is a better choice for audience surrogate. He first meets the Doctor when he arrives on Earthis involved in the story from as soon as the TARDIS lands until the end of the story.  However he spends most of the story allied with the Master.  Potentially this alliance to the Master the story could have worked if he was the central character.

Change Lee’s story would be of being a gang member meeting an alien and helping him restore his bodies. Over time Chang could slowly start having doubts, before realising he is supporting the wrong Time Lord.  This would allow better audience engagement for people unfamiliar with Doctor Who. However, the film instead focuses on Grace and the Eighth Doctor. By doing this, most of the first fifth of the film does not feature the focus characters. 

Monsters vs the Master – a bad choice

While the Master is a long term villain in Doctor Who, he rarely works alone. In most Master stories, he mostly he works with alien allies, monsters, or robot companions.

The Master is an odd choice for a launch story. I understand the character is affordable as a villain, just requiring an actor, no monster design required. But the Master works better when he has a bit of force behind him.  The Master is more of a threat when they have a power behind them, compared to the Doctor operating alone. Having the film just be about two duelling time lords, also leads to one further problem.

How is the Doctor a Hero?

The Doctor is usually our hero, in the movie as he was in the TV series. His name is the title of the movie after all. Once he regenerates, the new Doctor provides massive information dumps to Grace to introduce his character to all of us. But once we learn who the Doctor is, what does this movie say he does?

He saves the Earth! And what does he save the Earth from? His own TARDIS! Which is threatening the entire Earth because the Master left it open. And the Master is only on Earth because the Doctor accidentally brought him there.

Other stories have the issue of the Doctor only solving a problem he created, like this Movie does. However, the movie, in wanting to launch a series, needed to not have problems.

For a familiar fan, you know this is another episode in the ongoing fight between the Doctor and the Master. For a new viewer, though, Earth is just a casualty in a feud between two aliens. Instead of being a hero we need, Earth would have been better off without either the Doctor or the Master arriving. Therefore the Doctor’s actions come off as careless, resulting in deaths and the near destruction of Earth.

What happens next?

At the end of the movie, I wondered “Would I enjoy a series continued from this movie?”

I’ve asked this before, with varied answers. Sometimes I think a new series based on the TV movie would be exciting. Or sometimes I feel a series would esemble other nineties Sci-Fi like the X-Files, and I think I would not enjoy. But this time I realised, I have no idea. Because I have no idea what the series based on this would be like.

The main villain is (apparently) dead. Grace is choosing not to travel with Doctor for a reason I still don’t understand.  Perhaps the writers did not want to bring in a new companion if they weren’t certain if there would be an ongoing series. However, other companions had left without explanation, such as Ace in the seventh Doctor era.  We’ve got the Doctor traveling without a reason. All the movie has said about his motivations so far is that he transports dead Gallifreyans to Gallifrey.

Potentially the next episode could be nothing to do with this story, using new characters and settings. However, this would mean the next episode would need to completely reintroduce the series again. Alternatively, if it wishes to keep Grace and other concepts of the series, any such episode would need to copy a lot of the TV movie. The doctor is would be drawn back to San Francisco to fight an alien menace and see Grace. While this could end with Grace joining the Doctor, it would otherwise be the same general story outline of the first movie.

Not knowing what will happen next can be exciting. Literally having no idea of what the purpose of the characters you are watching is, is not .

The immediate follow up to the TV movie in other media, the Doctor Who Magazine Comic Book and the BBC Book series, both chose to avoid this problem by immediately sending their version of the Eighth Doctor to places the classic fans would be familiar with: Stockbridge fighting the Celestial Toymaker in the comics, and visiting each of his previous incarnations in the book series

What would have been better if the story ended with the Doctor showing Grace and Chang Lee his home planet Gallifrey on the scanner, and saying “Let’s go!” The next episode would still need to be entirely different from what we had seen before, but this way would build on what has happened before, and give viewers an idea what to expect for the next one, what the Doctor does, and have something to get excited about. And excitement means we want to see the next movie, rather than would merely accept it if it arrived.

What Rose Does Right

So with that in mind, what did “Rose” do right?  Why was Rose an instant hit, and the movie was not?

As mentioned before, Rose had the benefit of not having a lot riding on it compared to the movie. No one needs to completely decide whether or not they like Doctor Who by the end of “Rose”, because there are another twelve episodes coming either way.  However, “Rose” succeeded regardless.  

Partly that was because they did choose to focus on the character of Rose, a fairly easy to understand earth woman. This focus only really shifted towards the Doctor towards the end of the first series, and then once the Ninth Doctor regenerated the focus returned to her.  While this lead to complaints of “Rose Show featuring the Doctor” this method was successful in appealing to new fans. If someone had never watched an episode of Doctor Who before, they would learn everything you need to know through Rose, gradually and naturally, without need for info dumps of the kind the TV Movie had in abundance.

This method of introducing the series was used successfully twice before. First we learned of the Doctor through regular schoolteachers Ian and Barbara in 1963, and to a lesser degree we learn of the Doctor through regular earth people the Brigadier and Liz Shaw in 1971.

There was also a clear focus on monsters from the start. Some of them weren’t that amazing, but they had a look which got people excited. The Doctor has a purpose and motivation – to defeat the Autons and save the day. In “Rose”, the Doctor saves the Earth. What he does is save people, not just fixing up his own mistakes. And knowing this is the Doctor’s purpose, we have an idea of what he will do next, creating excitement for the next installment.

Final Thoughts

So, the movie was never terrible, but a good looking production with many problems. It’s big success is showing the later relaunch what not to do which later production teams learnt from. And by bringing us a new Doctor, there was a spark in fandom which may have kept it going for as long as it did, leading to creations such as Big Finish audio series featuring the Eighth Doctor still continuing to this day.

Doctor Who has had a larger amount of output post hiatus than most other stories. Usually there’s a bit of excitement for a few years, then people move onto different things.  I noticed in the lead up to the new series in 2004, there was a significant winding down in fan interest, with the BBC Book series slowing production, and Big Finish trying to permanently free itself from regular continuity with the assumption that there would be no regular continuity to ever return to. 

Could Doctor Who have survived from 1989 to 2004 relying on only novels, and comics to sustain their fandom? Thankfully, we’ll never ever find out. (3 / 5)

“U is for U.F.O.” is an episode of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. It originally aired under CBS before moving to Paramount+. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.

The assessors investigate a potential U.F.O. sighting. David (Mike Colter) meets a member of the “entity” (Brian d’Arcy James as Victor LeConte), learning that their goals may be aligned. Kristen (Katja Herbers) and Andy (Patrick Brammall) try couples’ therapy. Leland (Michael Emerson) makes a diabolical goat curry to offer peace.

What I Like about “U is for U.F.O.”

The intricacy of Catholic apologetics and alien life creates an interesting–if troubling–conversation that doesn’t refute alien life outright. It’s an intriguing perspective if thrown in with little exploration. Regardless of the stance, it is an interesting conversation for the show. As a side note, the church’s test for the U.F.O. witnesses both amuses me and suggests a long history between the Catholic church and these sightings.

This episode introduces Victor LeConte, a mysterious character working within the Catholic church. Brian d’Arcy James portrays the character with a subtlety and playfulness that makes viewers uncertain of his motives. Good or bad, ally or adversary, he teeters the line even in this introduction to the character. 

Leland’s darker journey in villainy is another great contribution in “U is for U.F.O.” As the series evolves, Leland evolves in his own arc that builds him up as the antagonist of the series. It’s one of those decisions that every series with a great introductory villain faces to keep them or up the stakes with a newer, worse character. Evil shows clear intent on investing in the antagonist to match the protagonists.

“U is for U.F.O.” makes good on the promised focus of last season’s finale. While I won’t get into the details, there’s a strong suggestion on where the next episode might focus, returning to overlooked plot points.

There’s an unsettling moment when David attempts to meditate. While I hesitate to say this moment haunts the viewer, it creates a lasting effect. “U is for U.F.O.” leans more toward the drama aspect of Evil, which makes this moment stand out.

Tired Tropes and Triggers

As mentioned, there’s some conversation on the apologetics of the Catholic church and alien life. One part of the conversation loosely referenced the role of the church in colonizing America.

I don’t know if this belongs here, but there are clear points where both the military and the Catholic church attempt to cover up information. While they likely have drastically different reasons, Victor LeConte technically works within intelligence agencies, potentially connecting these coverups.

What I Dislike about “U is for U.F.O.”

A military representative tries to blame the sighting on a civilian aircraft for what would be a state-of-the-art piece of machinery. Anything that can keep up with the best of the US military-industrial complex cannot be based in a garage. The addition is too absurd to ignore when a better theory gets attention later.

It is amusing that Andy talks about fixing the relationship, holds a family meeting, and plans to leave in said meeting. While the reason is to finish tying up loose ends of the business, it’s likely to keep Andy from the household and further strain Kristen’s relationship with him.

Final Thoughts

“U is for U.F.O.” pushes the plot forward and introduces a few exciting revelations. While it’s far from the most haunting or scary episode, it does provide a meaningful course correction that’s appreciated. If it could bring out the horror of Evil along the way, “U is for U.F.O.” might rank higher. But the episode has its moments.
(3 / 5)

Wicked City (1987) is a dark fantasy horror and the debut feature-length animation of director Yoshiaki Kawajiri. This unrated film adapts the first novel of the Wicked City series, Black Guard. It stars Yûsaku Yara, Toshiko Fujita and Ichirô Nagai. As of this review, Wicked City is available on Prime and Crunchyroll.

As the peace between the mortal and supernatural worlds ends, forces clash in a plot to establish a new order. Tasked with protecting the best chance for peace, Taki (Yûsaku Yara) must guard Giuseppe Mayart (Ichirô Nagai). A Black Worlder named Makie (Toshiko Fujita) remains his partner in this pursuit. Can the three brave the challenges and establish a world of peace?

What I Like about Wicked City

Wicked City works best in its parts, providing strong and interesting elements that don’t inherently add up to the whole. The art style and design evoke a memorable aesthetic. There’s a charm to this 80s-era anime that creates either an environment for abominations or spectacles.

It makes sense that Wicked City is an adaptation because the plot depicted seems like parts of a larger narrative we do not see in the film. From what remains, the world and political scheming seem worth exploring. Unfortunately, little of this plot receives depth.

Prior to this, Yoshiaki Kawajiri contributed to many TV shows, exercising a new muscle as he directed a film-length work. He seems invaluable on a team, as his filmography and success indicate, but his directorial contributions don’t seem as critically successful. This effort and work best express themselves in the level of animation and scenes depicted in this flawed film.

Despite the missing pieces throughout the film, the ending seems complete. While there’s clearly room for a sequel, Wicked City tells its story and suggests an answer to the new era’s direction.

Supposedly, this started out as a short film, but Yoshiaki Kawajiri’s execution earned enough attention and respect to get a green light for a feature-length film. This work was all done within a year. Assuming this is true, Wicked City’s completion and animation quality deserve respect.

It received a live-action adaptation. From my understanding, the film adapts the anime, but I hope and imagine some of the manga gets explored to make a more functioning plot.

Tired Tropes and Triggers

Sexual assault and rape remain grotesquely overused in the film. Such subject matter has a place in art, but its use in Wicked City gravitates more toward exploitation and spectacle. Many of the visual designs make most of the fight allegories for sexual assault atop the actual assaults.

As most creatures are organic, there’s a heightened amount of body horror. There’s a level of separation in animation as opposed to live-action body horror, but this point certainly applies to those sensitive to such material.

From what we learn of the characters, many decisions directly contradict their supposed purpose.

What I Dislike about Wicked City 

Wicked City circles forums and rank-listings as a cult classic or niche horror, but it’s flawed in almost every way. Ideally, such works might have a plot that draws one in. Wicked City has a concept of a plot that evokes interest but doesn’t communicate it well or explore its depths. Ultimately, it’s a film made up of its parts. The good gets outweighed by the dysfunctional points.

Frankly, the romantic tension between the two leads is underdeveloped. I hesitate to say it doesn’t exist because there’s some work implemented with this in mind. Viewers note the work in the film, but it lacks polish or sensibility.

Final Thoughts

Wicked City is a flawed work from a successful animator. If given more time to develop, perhaps a staple of the 80s might exist. Unfortunately, the film has merits in its parts but falls in connection to the whole. However, for those who can overlook the limitations and exploitations, there are many worthy parts that excel in terms of animation quality and creative decisions.
(2 / 5)