Many viewers of Doctor Who know that this TV movie was an attempt to revive Doctor Who in the 1990s. This film was a 3-way production between the BBC, Fox, and Universal and was filmed in Vancover. Despite strong views in the UK, the film failed to gain an audience in the US and a new Doctor Who series didn't premiere until 2005. Most Doctor Who fans are glad that this film failed to bring about a new series and this film is often considered to be one of the worst stories in Doctor Who's history with this film still inducing a somewhat vitriolic response from same fans even more than 25 years after the film premiered. Even the nicest comments I've heard about this movie boil down to "it was a good try" and many have described this film as a "so bad its good" film. However, it's not a stretch to say that many Doctor Who fans hate the TV Movie.
As someone who used to be a Doctor Who fan, and is now a casual enjoyer of the show, I can honestly say that this film is pretty much on par with most Doctor Who stories. Many viewers complain about the films lackluster plot with its many convinces and the half-human controversy. However, why does this film get so much flack, while the BBC run Doctor Who mostly gets away with poor writing? Most Doctor Who stories rely on convince and a quickly thrown together ending. Yes, the TARDIS bringing Grace and Lee back to life is silly, but how is it any less sill than examples in the revived series such the Doctor being restored back to his youthful appearance due to prayer, or Donna having the Doctor's intelligence because she touched the hand with the regeneration energy which created another Doctor. I'm not saying that this is a well written plot. The Master getting into the TARDIS before Lee is a major issue. However, I didn't have an issue with the Master's snake form stealing bodies. Again, how is that any sillier than him stealing Tremas' body in Keeper of Traken or the Master looking like Skeletor and having Sith lighting in The End of Time. As for the half-human controversy, Doctor Who has always been changing the Doctor's history to suit the plot. The Doctor was treated as a human until the Timelords were introduced, and suddenly Pertwee had two hearts. I would argue the revived series is even more guilty with unnecessary changes to the Doctor's backstory with Clara's character and the Hybrid plotline with Moffat, as well as the Timeless Child plot with Chibnall. Not to mention when Moffat changed aspects of Doctor Who lore such as Clara showing the Doctor which TARDIS he should use, the Dalek armor being what channels raw emotion into hatred.
Going back to the Master, his depiction by Eric Roberts seems to draw a lot of ire from most fans. That said, while he is certainly no Roger Delgado, I've never minded Robert's performance in this film. I know that many people think of the scenes towards the end of the film where he really hams up his performance, this is where we get the "I always dress for the occasion" and the scene in which he kisses Lee on the forehead. Regarding these scenes, the Master has basically won at this point, and he chooses to celebrate by dressing up in his Gallifreyan robes, he's essentially so vain that he's celebrating the fact that he's stealing the Doctor's lives. As for kissing Lee, the Master is again happy that he managed to pull the whole thing off and maybe he actually wanted Lee to travel with him until Lee decided to side with the Doctor. So, the Eric Robert's camp performance at the end is really down to the fact that, for a time, it seemed like the Master won. Again, is this really so much worse than Antony Ainley's Master manically laughing while pushing controlling the observatory dish in Logopolis before the 4th Doctor fell to his death, or John Simm's Master dancing to music while ruling over the Earth while beating up an elderly 10th Doctor. Not to mention that Robert's performance, while not great, is a bit better than often given credit for. He comes off as stiff and robotic at the start since he is still getting used to controlling this new body, then his performance becomes more natural as the film progresses. It's still not what I would call a great performance, some of his line delivery comes off as forced at times, but it's far from the terrible performance most make it out to be.
While the script has issues which I've mentioned before, there is still a lot to like about the film's writing. For a start, writer Matthew Jacobs really nailed the Eighth Doctor with this iteration blending Pertwee's charm, Tom Baker's alien quirkiness, and Davision's nobility, as well as being more romantic than his predecessors. Coupled with Paul McGann's performance, its easy to see why the Eighth Doctor has had such longevity even to this day despite his limited screentime. I even like the side characters of Grace and Chang Lee and their character arcs. Because of the Doctor, Grace decides to continue her job as a cardiologist and Lee decides to turn over a new leaf. I though the themes of renewal and regeneration was actually really well woven into the story with not only the Doctor and Master literally coming back to life, but also with the changes to Grace and Lee's characters by the stories end. I also liked the symmetry between the Doctor and the Master with both characters coming back to life, but the Doctor regenerates while the Master steals an innocent man's body. Both the Doctor and the Master have sidekicks, but the Doctor manages to convince Grace with the truth while the Master lies to Lee about getting gold dust. There are even other interesting aspects such as the Doctor looking a lot like Christ by only wearing a shroud after regenerating and wearing a metal crown of thorns at the film's end. The Master was not only duplicitous but, is depicted as a snake early in the film. The Doctor is shown to be Christ-like, and the Master is even referred to as the Devil. While I don't really care for this religious symbolism in this film, it's another aspect of this film to think about.
Other aspects I enjoyed were the production design, music, and direction. Richard Hudolin's TARDIS interior is a favorite of many including myself with its appearance feeling very Victorian and channels a lot of design cues from the 1960s The Time Machine. The film itself, in terms of production design, has aged very well. This is due to Hudolin talents since he has also worked in other notable Science-Fiction works such as Timecop, Stargate SG1, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. John Debney's music, while not my favorite music in all of Doctor Who, is a welcome departure from the classic series with an orchestral score. Again, I think the film's score is somewhat underappreciated due to its similarities to Murry Gold's score to the modern Doctor Who show. The highlights of the score for me would be the main theme, the music when the Doctor finds his costume in the locker, and the climax of the film. Also, Geoffrey Sax's direction was, at this point, the most cinematic Doctor Who had ever looked and if it weren't for some tv quality effects (stock footage and other TV quality SFX), this film could have passed for a theatrical release if it was in widescreen.
There also seems to be this idea that the TV Movie was just made by FOX and a bunch of clueless Americans who knew nothing about Doctor Who. This notion is far from the truth with Philip Segal, the film's producer, being a Doctor Who fan since childhood. The film's writer, Matthew Jacobs, was also a fan of Doctor Who from an early age with his father even appearing in the First Doctor episode The Gunslingers as Doc Holliday. Not to mention that the film's director, Geoffrey Sax, has directed many films and tv shows as recent as ITV's Victoria TV show. Not to mention that this film was co-produced by the BBC so clearly people knowledgeable on Doctor Who were involved in the making of this film.
In recent years I've really noticed a large level of distain towards this film. Now don't get me wrong, this film was never that well liked but considering how similar this film is to the revived series, I expected that this film would find a new appreciation aside from just McGann's performance and the TARDIS interior. However, this film's reputation apparently has only gotten worse considering this film's score has gone down from a 6.4 to a 6.3. While I wouldn't call this film a classic by any means, it pretty much encapsulates everything good and bad about Doctor Who. The story is overly convoluted with too much exposition and relies too much on the show's lore, the antagonist hams it up, and the story is wrapped-up too quickly and easily. However, the film also has good performances bolstered by a likable lead. Despite the story itself being mediocre, it has some good aspects that make it entertaining. Chang Lee and Grace Holloway make for decent side characters, and I wouldn't mind if they showed up again in the modern series, the quick pace of the film makes it enjoyable as well, and the themes of the film are well presented. In all I enjoy the Doctor Who movie and I don't think it deserves the reputation of being a blight or stain on the series record. While I agree that the films could have been better, I don't think it's that much worse than most of the series finales of the modern Doctor Who show. While I'm not saying you have to like it, but if you are someone who thinks that the TV Movie is one of the worst stories in Doctor Who, I urge you to give it a rewatch. I's flawed, but it was made by people who genuinely cared about Doctor Who and I think it shows while watching the film. Not a great film, but worth watching once for any self-confessed Doctor Who fan. If nothing else, it showed that there was still a little life left in the old Doctor.
As someone who used to be a Doctor Who fan, and is now a casual enjoyer of the show, I can honestly say that this film is pretty much on par with most Doctor Who stories. Many viewers complain about the films lackluster plot with its many convinces and the half-human controversy. However, why does this film get so much flack, while the BBC run Doctor Who mostly gets away with poor writing? Most Doctor Who stories rely on convince and a quickly thrown together ending. Yes, the TARDIS bringing Grace and Lee back to life is silly, but how is it any less sill than examples in the revived series such the Doctor being restored back to his youthful appearance due to prayer, or Donna having the Doctor's intelligence because she touched the hand with the regeneration energy which created another Doctor. I'm not saying that this is a well written plot. The Master getting into the TARDIS before Lee is a major issue. However, I didn't have an issue with the Master's snake form stealing bodies. Again, how is that any sillier than him stealing Tremas' body in Keeper of Traken or the Master looking like Skeletor and having Sith lighting in The End of Time. As for the half-human controversy, Doctor Who has always been changing the Doctor's history to suit the plot. The Doctor was treated as a human until the Timelords were introduced, and suddenly Pertwee had two hearts. I would argue the revived series is even more guilty with unnecessary changes to the Doctor's backstory with Clara's character and the Hybrid plotline with Moffat, as well as the Timeless Child plot with Chibnall. Not to mention when Moffat changed aspects of Doctor Who lore such as Clara showing the Doctor which TARDIS he should use, the Dalek armor being what channels raw emotion into hatred.
Going back to the Master, his depiction by Eric Roberts seems to draw a lot of ire from most fans. That said, while he is certainly no Roger Delgado, I've never minded Robert's performance in this film. I know that many people think of the scenes towards the end of the film where he really hams up his performance, this is where we get the "I always dress for the occasion" and the scene in which he kisses Lee on the forehead. Regarding these scenes, the Master has basically won at this point, and he chooses to celebrate by dressing up in his Gallifreyan robes, he's essentially so vain that he's celebrating the fact that he's stealing the Doctor's lives. As for kissing Lee, the Master is again happy that he managed to pull the whole thing off and maybe he actually wanted Lee to travel with him until Lee decided to side with the Doctor. So, the Eric Robert's camp performance at the end is really down to the fact that, for a time, it seemed like the Master won. Again, is this really so much worse than Antony Ainley's Master manically laughing while pushing controlling the observatory dish in Logopolis before the 4th Doctor fell to his death, or John Simm's Master dancing to music while ruling over the Earth while beating up an elderly 10th Doctor. Not to mention that Robert's performance, while not great, is a bit better than often given credit for. He comes off as stiff and robotic at the start since he is still getting used to controlling this new body, then his performance becomes more natural as the film progresses. It's still not what I would call a great performance, some of his line delivery comes off as forced at times, but it's far from the terrible performance most make it out to be.
While the script has issues which I've mentioned before, there is still a lot to like about the film's writing. For a start, writer Matthew Jacobs really nailed the Eighth Doctor with this iteration blending Pertwee's charm, Tom Baker's alien quirkiness, and Davision's nobility, as well as being more romantic than his predecessors. Coupled with Paul McGann's performance, its easy to see why the Eighth Doctor has had such longevity even to this day despite his limited screentime. I even like the side characters of Grace and Chang Lee and their character arcs. Because of the Doctor, Grace decides to continue her job as a cardiologist and Lee decides to turn over a new leaf. I though the themes of renewal and regeneration was actually really well woven into the story with not only the Doctor and Master literally coming back to life, but also with the changes to Grace and Lee's characters by the stories end. I also liked the symmetry between the Doctor and the Master with both characters coming back to life, but the Doctor regenerates while the Master steals an innocent man's body. Both the Doctor and the Master have sidekicks, but the Doctor manages to convince Grace with the truth while the Master lies to Lee about getting gold dust. There are even other interesting aspects such as the Doctor looking a lot like Christ by only wearing a shroud after regenerating and wearing a metal crown of thorns at the film's end. The Master was not only duplicitous but, is depicted as a snake early in the film. The Doctor is shown to be Christ-like, and the Master is even referred to as the Devil. While I don't really care for this religious symbolism in this film, it's another aspect of this film to think about.
Other aspects I enjoyed were the production design, music, and direction. Richard Hudolin's TARDIS interior is a favorite of many including myself with its appearance feeling very Victorian and channels a lot of design cues from the 1960s The Time Machine. The film itself, in terms of production design, has aged very well. This is due to Hudolin talents since he has also worked in other notable Science-Fiction works such as Timecop, Stargate SG1, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. John Debney's music, while not my favorite music in all of Doctor Who, is a welcome departure from the classic series with an orchestral score. Again, I think the film's score is somewhat underappreciated due to its similarities to Murry Gold's score to the modern Doctor Who show. The highlights of the score for me would be the main theme, the music when the Doctor finds his costume in the locker, and the climax of the film. Also, Geoffrey Sax's direction was, at this point, the most cinematic Doctor Who had ever looked and if it weren't for some tv quality effects (stock footage and other TV quality SFX), this film could have passed for a theatrical release if it was in widescreen.
There also seems to be this idea that the TV Movie was just made by FOX and a bunch of clueless Americans who knew nothing about Doctor Who. This notion is far from the truth with Philip Segal, the film's producer, being a Doctor Who fan since childhood. The film's writer, Matthew Jacobs, was also a fan of Doctor Who from an early age with his father even appearing in the First Doctor episode The Gunslingers as Doc Holliday. Not to mention that the film's director, Geoffrey Sax, has directed many films and tv shows as recent as ITV's Victoria TV show. Not to mention that this film was co-produced by the BBC so clearly people knowledgeable on Doctor Who were involved in the making of this film.
In recent years I've really noticed a large level of distain towards this film. Now don't get me wrong, this film was never that well liked but considering how similar this film is to the revived series, I expected that this film would find a new appreciation aside from just McGann's performance and the TARDIS interior. However, this film's reputation apparently has only gotten worse considering this film's score has gone down from a 6.4 to a 6.3. While I wouldn't call this film a classic by any means, it pretty much encapsulates everything good and bad about Doctor Who. The story is overly convoluted with too much exposition and relies too much on the show's lore, the antagonist hams it up, and the story is wrapped-up too quickly and easily. However, the film also has good performances bolstered by a likable lead. Despite the story itself being mediocre, it has some good aspects that make it entertaining. Chang Lee and Grace Holloway make for decent side characters, and I wouldn't mind if they showed up again in the modern series, the quick pace of the film makes it enjoyable as well, and the themes of the film are well presented. In all I enjoy the Doctor Who movie and I don't think it deserves the reputation of being a blight or stain on the series record. While I agree that the films could have been better, I don't think it's that much worse than most of the series finales of the modern Doctor Who show. While I'm not saying you have to like it, but if you are someone who thinks that the TV Movie is one of the worst stories in Doctor Who, I urge you to give it a rewatch. I's flawed, but it was made by people who genuinely cared about Doctor Who and I think it shows while watching the film. Not a great film, but worth watching once for any self-confessed Doctor Who fan. If nothing else, it showed that there was still a little life left in the old Doctor.