The BBC's attempts to re-centralize the Doctor Who format have brought it into conflict with many of those who kept it going while it was off-air.
By the time the BBC agreed to revive Doctor Who in 2003, it had been off-air for fourteen years, and the spin-offs had moved into novelizations from Virgin Books and audio programmes featuring Peter Davison and Nicola Bryant, among others.
The BBC moved quickly to retake control of the franchise, and any ‘New’ adventures promptly ceased. A few of the writers, Paul Cornell, Mark Gatiss and Gareth Roberts, were able to gain entrée into the world of screenplay-writing, and not only survived, but in fact prospered. Many more were not so lucky.
In a way this is understandable; the BBC had put a sizeable investment into the series. But the whole point of the Doctor is that he is nine hundred years old, and for every story on screen has had a hundred, even a thousand off-screen.
Given the limitations –budgetary, suitability for ‘family ‘viewing,’ whether they are even able to filmed—it would seem sensible for the BBC, which has an insatiable (if understandable) appetite for spin-off revenue, to actively embrace novel and audio adventures beyond the scope of the TV series.
However, Davies’ recent comments in the (London) Independent newspaper indicate that he has little time for views differing from his own, and the BBC have indicated to other writers that they wish to focus on the current (tenth) Doctor, and not ‘confuse’ the audience. This rather patronizing attitude may change when/if Davies’ moves on, and a new controller takes over the series. In the meantime, a similar situation prevails as when ‘talkies’ replaced silent films, in that established authors find themselves with novels they started before the show’s revival, and subsequently completed, that they are unable to sell.
Let’s hope that the various competing attitudes can find resolution.
