Latest BBC Rumours - Indie Production for '96
Ryan K. Johnson
My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
adventure series that has had two seasons already). McGann is contractually
obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
Not a rumour but a fact is on Bank Holiday Monday (August 26th), BBC-2's
"Star Trek Theme Night" will feature a short subject on various "Trek"
parodies over the years. Included will be a clip from my 1988 parody "Star
Trek: The Pepsi Generation." Watch for the ersatz Picard attempting to
deliver the "Space, the final frontier" speech.
Cheers,
Ryan
=========================================================================
RYAN K. JOHNSON
Right where you can't miss him...in Bothell, Washington
r...@eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~rkj/
=========================================================================
The Macra Terror
r...@eskimo.com (Ryan K. Johnson) wrote:
>My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
>any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
>be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
>company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
>adventure series that has had two seasons already). McGann is contractually
>obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
This would be nice, if true, but it's unlikely. I've heard several
times that Fox has rights of first refusal on any new Who production
until the end of 1996.
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 20 Aug 1996 21:01:03 GMT, I overheard The Macra Terror say:
Yes, FOX has until the end of December to make up its mind. Although,
there's nothing stopping FOX from telling the BBC now that they're not
interested. I don't think the BBC can just arbitrarily cut ties with them,
however.
There's also the question of how McGann's contract is structured... quite
apart from the timing of any new production (which Ryan mentions), there's
the fact that he may be contracted only to a project involving each of the
three original parties, ie FOX, BBC Worldwide and Universal. There's the
possibility that, if one or two of these parties back out, McGann's
contract would be null and void. (Similarly, it's also possible he's
contracted only to BBC Worldwide, or that there's a clause in his existing
contract allowing for these situations. So please pardon the rampant
speculation. :-))
Shannon
--
----------------------- Shannon Patrick Sullivan -----------------------
sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps
Doctor Who Page: http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/drwho.html
"'The Old Ways are lost,' you said as you flew, and I wondered why"
Loreena McKennitt, "The Old Ways"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Doctor
In article <DwG2p...@eskimo.com>, Ryan K. Johnson <r...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
>any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
>be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
>company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
>adventure series that has had two seasons already). McGann is contractually
>obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
>
>"Star Trek Theme Night" will feature a short subject on various "Trek"
>parodies over the years. Included will be a clip from my 1988 parody "Star
>Trek: The Pepsi Generation." Watch for the ersatz Picard attempting to
>deliver the "Space, the final frontier" speech.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ryan
I am willing to believe you Ryan, BUT who are your sources?
>
>=========================================================================
> RYAN K. JOHNSON
> Right where you can't miss him...in Bothell, Washington
> r...@eskimo.com
> http://www.eskimo.com/~rkj/
>=========================================================================
>
>
--
God, Queen and Country Member - Liberal International
NEVER Satan, President and Republic Member - Edmonton Heritage Nazarene
Hating Bachelor's Living Member - Any Edmonton PC User Group
Republicanism is Satanism: Satan wants to usurp God from his throne just like
republicans are out to dismiss monarchies.
http://doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca/~doctor Save the World and Civilization; REPUBLICS DISSOLVE! USA, call a referendum to dissolve the Union and vote YES!!!
COL TLord
Spoke with Philip Segal today about this - jusy another rumor started
god-knows where - has no substance.
Paul
Lori Grenci
In <DwG2p...@eskimo.com> r...@eskimo.com (Ryan K. Johnson) writes:
>
> McGann is contractually
>obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
>
So then, they better hurry up!
-Lori-
Corey Klemow
:The Macra Terror wrote:
:
:r...@eskimo.com (Ryan K. Johnson) wrote:
:>My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
:>any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
:>be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
:>company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
:>obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
:This would be nice, if true, but it's unlikely. I've heard several
:times that Fox has rights of first refusal on any new Who production
:until the end of 1996.
Yup, absolutely true.
Also, Ryan's statement about McGann's contract is inaccurate. His contract
*only* applies to DOCTOR WHO co-produced by the BBC, Universal, and FOX.
If any of the three drop out, his contract will have to be re-negotiated.
Christopher D. Heer
In article <4viv4f$kr4$2...@mhafc.production.compuserve.com>, Corey Klemow
(76602...@CompuServe.COM) says...
>:The Macra Terror wrote:
>Yup, absolutely true.
It really depends on who his contract is with. But as Macra pointed out, Fox
has things locked up this year.
Second of all, even if they *did* have McGann under contract, that means they'd
have to *pay* him at the high Universal/Fox type rates, something I very much
doubt a smaller, British coproduction could afford.
And finally, there is no *way* something would get off the ground by the end of
the year. It'll take longer than that just to get the lawyers done with the
coproduction agreement.
At this point, unless Fox suddenly renews its interest, we're not seeing Who on
our screens before 1998.
--
Christopher D. Heer: Vice President & CoFounder of| ch...@us.oracle.com
the William Sasso Fan Club! Bring Pete to Visions!| The cheer-o-meter
My opinions are my own and do not reflect those | says today Chris is
of Oracle Corp. Not that I've asked, of course. | in: Chicago, IL!
Christopher D. Heer
In article <DwG2p...@eskimo.com>, Ryan K. Johnson (r...@eskimo.com) says...
>My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
>any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
>be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
>company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
>adventure series that has had two seasons already). McGann is contractually
>obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
Been a while since I've gotten to debunk some rumours. :)
Fox has things tied up until the end of the year, as far as I know. McGann may
not be obligated to appear; I think his contract is with Universal (or
BBCWW/Universal as a joint entity). They would still have to pay him the
higher, Hollywood-level pay even in a smaller coproduction. And finally, there
is no way anything will be made before the year is over. :)
The Robinsons
Corey Klemow (76602...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:[snip]
: Also, Ryan's statement about McGann's contract is inaccurate. His contract
: *only* applies to DOCTOR WHO co-produced by the BBC, Universal, and FOX.
: If any of the three drop out, his contract will have to be re-negotiated.
Do we know this for sure? Has anyone actually seen the contract or asked
the parties involved? I know it's a definite possibility but I thought it
was an unconfirmed definite possibility.
--
Becky Robinson
_n_
.- ===== --------------------------------------------------------------.
| |#|#| Robinson Family < infi...@wasatch.com > Lynn, Becky, & Chris |
| |L|L| http://www.wasatch.com/~infinity/ |
| |L|L| This is a family account, please specify who replies are for. |
`- ===== --------------------------------------------------------------'
Gulliver
In article <4vev78$k...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
da...@ix.netcom.com(Lori Grenci) wrote:
> In <DwG2p...@eskimo.com> r...@eskimo.com (Ryan K. Johnson) writes:
> >
> >obligated to appear in anything made before the end of the year.
> >
>
Just because he is not contracually obliged to appear in 1997 DW (if it
happens) doesn't mean that he woudln't. If he enjoyed doing the movie
and if he wants to contine (AIUI he does) and if suitable finantial
arrangements can be made he can still continue and probably will.
I heard that he was contracted to be the 8th Doctor for five years - but
that could be bullshit.
--
Angus Gulliver
an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk
Also at a.w.r.g...@herts.ac.uk
I plan to live forever...
...or die trying!
Mark
In article <1kiIy4DY...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, Gulliver
<an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>Just because he is not contracually obliged to appear in 1997 DW (if it
>happens) doesn't mean that he woudln't. If he enjoyed doing the movie
>and if he wants to contine (AIUI he does) and if suitable finantial
>arrangements can be made he can still continue and probably will.
>
>I heard that he was contracted to be the 8th Doctor for five years - but
>that could be bullshit.
>
The reports I heard (just sort of amorphously from several directions),
was that McGann was vaguely embarrassed by the reception that the movie
got. So I suspect (And I may be grossly wrong), that if they don't get
moving before he's out of contractual obligation, he might well move on
and pretend it never happened.
Have Fun, Mark
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 22:46:13 GMT, I overheard Gulliver say:
> Just because he is not contracually obliged to appear in 1997 DW (if it
> happens) doesn't mean that he woudln't. If he enjoyed doing the movie
> and if he wants to contine (AIUI he does) and if suitable finantial
> arrangements can be made he can still continue and probably will.
Perhaps, but now that he's made a mark on American TV, I hink going back
to doing an exclusively UK programme would be seen in the entertainment
industry s a step back. (That's not a knock against British TV... it's
just the way things are, as far as I understand the industry.)
> I heard that he was contracted to be the 8th Doctor for five years - but
> that could be bullshit.
Yes, he was under the original contract. But if this contract relied upon
a BBC/FOX/Universal partnership, or if the BBC is unable to cough up the
cash to pay his salary, McGann will almost certainly be gone.
Gavin T.D. Greig
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
> Perhaps, but now that he's made a mark on American TV, I hink going back
> to doing an exclusively UK programme would be seen in the entertainment
> industry s a step back. (That's not a knock against British TV... it's
> just the way things are, as far as I understand the industry.)
So it must have been a really bad idea for Kathleen Turner to reprise the
role of VI Warshawski for BBC Radio 4 a few years back?
Cheers,
Gavin.
--
****************************************************************** \ oo
Gavin Greig, Home: cade...@asgard.compulink.co.uk \____|\mm
M&CS Senior Work: ggr...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk //_//\ \_\
Student Web : http://www.mcs.dundee.ac.uk:8080/~ggreig/ /K-9/ \/_/
***************************************************************** /___/_____\
alexander floyd vargas
In article <$TJhalAG...@slater1.demon.co.uk>,
Mark <Mark/Ela...@slater1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <1kiIy4DY...@spuddy.mew.co.uk>, Gulliver
><an...@spuddy.mew.co.uk> writes
>>happens) doesn't mean that he woudln't. If he enjoyed doing the movie
>>and if he wants to contine (AIUI he does) and if suitable finantial
>>arrangements can be made he can still continue and probably will.
>>
>>that could be bullshit.
>>
>
>was that McGann was vaguely embarrassed by the reception that the movie
>got. So I suspect (And I may be grossly wrong), that if they don't get
>moving before he's out of contractual obligation, he might well move on
>and pretend it never happened.
>
>Have Fun, Mark
Dec.1996.They can make a new movie or episode-Alex
Jonathan Blum
In article <3226D610...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk>,
Gavin T.D. Greig <ggr...@mcs.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>> Perhaps, but now that he's made a mark on American TV, I hink going back
>> to doing an exclusively UK programme would be seen in the entertainment
>> industry s a step back. (That's not a knock against British TV... it's
>> just the way things are, as far as I understand the industry.)
>So it must have been a really bad idea for Kathleen Turner to reprise the
>role of VI Warshawski for BBC Radio 4 a few years back?
Considering how many people went to see the "VI Warshawski" movie, I'd
think a Radio 4 audience would be a step up...
Regards,
Jon Blum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of
chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!"
D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
Gez Ellard
In article <DwG2p...@eskimo.com>, "Ryan K. Johnson" <r...@eskimo.com>
writes
>My spies in England reported to me on August 19th that the BBC has severed
>any ties with American co-producers (ie. Fox and Universal) and instead will
>be tendering out a bid for "Doctor Who" to be produced by an independent UK
>company. Word is 10 50-minute episodes ala "Bugs" (a glossy filmed
>
>
year books, video but no mention of a series. As for McGann I think he
made / will make an excellent doctor. But if he doesn't appear in a new
series does that mean we can re-write canon without the plot from the
movie ? IMHO not a bad thing.
--
Gez Ellard