question for fellow doctor who fans...

[Mike70]

why do you think that the two excellent movies starring peter cushing are not considered canon (he is usually not included on canon lists- 1st doctor, 2d doctor, etc)?

my own feeling is that cushing's appearances as the doctor came so early on that no one ever even thought that doctor who would still be hugely popular 45 years later. when it came time to think out a canon for the show it was decided to restrict it to those things that tied directly into the tv series.

i think that sean mcgann's (or is it mcCann? i'm too lazy to look it up right now, i'll edit this post if wrong) one off appearance (on film at any rate) is considered canon because sylvester mccoy's appearance ties it to the "offical" doctor storyline.

[tkane18]

If you read the plot descriptions on imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059126/plotsummary), it describes Dr. Who as a scientist who invents a time machine called a TARDIS. There is no mention of him being a Time Lord. I have not seen these movies but from what I hear, they are just loosely based on the original Doctor Who character and don't follow the rules to the letter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rottedfreak]

The films are based on the TV serials Doctor Who and the Daleks and Doctor Who and the Dalek Invasion of Earth so those stories have already been done.

[Cykotic]

they are not considered canon...

bloody good films though!

[Burbank]

I do enjoy those films, but wish that the Paul McGann TV movie wasn't considered canon though, a waste of a regeneration. However, it does seem, that with the current Master, that regerations can be kinda renewed.

[capncnut]

bloody good films though!
Indeed Cyk, and everytime I watch the Roboman sequence with Bernard Cribbins in Invasion Earth, I get a hardcore craving for Smarties. :D