Talk:List of unproduced stories

Defining the scope of this article

This article is a bit out of control. We need to create a lead that establishes its parameters and then move forward with the list that conforms to those parameters. Specifically, a story is not just a pitch. It must have been definitively greenlit, with some kind of actual commissioning of scripts. Just a few lines in a series bible or a letter to the production staff doesn't make a "lost story". There is, in other words, a difference between an unsold story and an unproduced story.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  21:01: Fri 23 Jun 2017

Indeed, when it comes to stories that were pitched and not taken up on, I think we don't need to have a page on them. OS25 (Talk) 22:24, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

looking at the list it seems to follow similar to Wikipedia an lists all the story's listed in reference works and i agree it needs trimming it one thing this list shod not do is simply become an list of titls as that whoud make the list useless for finding out about them these story's not having there own pagers will reduce the value of this kind of list as there is no info on the story's on this page with all details on the story pagers 2.30.191.42^{talk to me} 13:27, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

I find myself thinking of stories like The Killing Stone, and I come to decide that just because a writer met with someone at the BBC to pitch the story doesn't mean that we need to document them. However, I think deleting every story that was greenlit without being produced is going over-board. OS25 (Talk) 23:37, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

if all picheres are deleted then all stories listed in the planland season 27 and 28 will have to be deleted as non where atuley commissioned infac the stories earth aid ice time and crime of the century are described on the endgame documentary as just ideas whats more both andrew cartmell and JNT had quit by the end of season 26 2.30.191.42^{talk to me} 18:56, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

A possible solution to this would be to go the way of Wikipedia and change the name to List of unmade stories. I agree with the users above that deleting every unmade story would be overboard but pages like Circus of Destiny certainly don't need to exist with the amount of content on them. The solution to this would be to turn the list into a table and unmade stories with a detailed plot and production details etc. can get their own page but stories to which little is known can be covered sufficiently within the confines of the table. --Borisashton ☎ 23:54, December 16, 2017 (UTC)

Most of these entries need supporting evidence (I've never heard that "The Paradise of Death" from the 1990s was pitched twenty-thirty years previously, and it's not even mentioned on its own page) and those that do have footnotes, the footnotes themselves have vanished.86.161.139.26^{talk to me} 10:10, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

So… where are we on this decision? Danniesen ☎ 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Return of the Cybermen

How about adding return of the cybermen Which is evident of existing– The preceding unsigned comment was added by The doctor of who?cirkd,rik (talk • contribs) .

It is already inserted in season 12RingoRoadagain ☎ 01:59, March 24, 2020 (UTC)

Rename

Given that this page collects the wiki's pages about both unproduced and unsold stories, wouldn't a better title be "List of unmade stories", as Borisashton suggested a few years ago? – n8 (☎) 20:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. That 2017 discussion seems quite archaic anyway — I think it's pretty well-demonstrated at this point that pages about official pitches that didn't end up being greenlit are considered of interest to the average Doctor Who fan these days; for one thing, The Lost Stories, as close to an "official" definition of the idea as we're likely to get, have indeed produced things that were never greenlit in their original form.

The distinction is also only really applicable for TV — cases of a book or audio being greenlit only to be cancelled partway through "production" are so vanishingly rare that I can think of only one “Unproduced” novel fitting that description. Nearly all the interesting non-TV "stories that almost were, had influence on later productions, but were never completed themselves" never made it past the pitch, because "production"-wise, much more of the work on a novel is done before the author officially brings a pitch to the publisher.

As for the proposal to limit stories about which information is scarce to a mention on a table on this page, without a page of their own — it seems to cut against the general philosophy on the Wiki that no topic is too small. If one thing of one 'kind' is worth a page, then another that is identical in kind should be too even if the content is smaller.

That's not necessarily relevant to the rename, I just thought I'd highlight all of this since the earlier discussion never really had a conclusion. I'm not completely sold on the rename either, though, or at least on this specific option. What's nice about "unproduced" is that it highlights the idea that a story wasn't produced commercially. Deadline to Doomsday did end up getting made — but for an unlicensed zine; it was never produced fully in a commercial context. It's unproduced, but not unmade!

(Oh, and: even laying aside the fact that we absolutely do want to keep pages about noteworthy failed pitches, Czech's suggestion of "unsold" is I think too vague. It could be taken to mean something which was produced in full, but never sold to the general public for one reason or another; e.g. Journey into Time.) Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my opinions on the matter in 2021, I absolutely agree with Scrooge that the idea of not having pages on things like Circus of Destiny is outdated by today's standards. For a definition of "unmade" more rooted in Wiki policy, how about something like "a story expected to pass rule 2 of T:VS at its conception, which does not violate T:SPOIL now, but does violate either rule 2 or 3 in its current form"? It's a tad wordy but it covers stories always intended to be fanfiction, rule 3 failers still in production (e.g. Series 13), and stories both finished for release in non-licensed publications and ones that never saw the light of day at all. I imagine all of this would ideally be in the lead in conjunction with the "List of unmade stories" rename. Borisashton ☎ 00:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the most obvious case of unproduced stories we can use to flesh out our ideas on the proposed rule would be this list (simply because the nature of the series means that there will always be a lot of "never were"s). Some of them sort of obviously don't qualify, some of them might violate spoiler rules still, and some probably do qualify. Najawin ☎ 00:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I suggest List of unproduced or unreleased stories? Many of the things in this page include stories which were finished, and were just never published. So they're hardly unproduced. OS25🤙☎️ 20:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more precise? I'm not sure things which were officially completed, but never actually released should be placed on this page. This page should map onto Category:Unproduced stories, is the point, and onto which pages have an {{unprod}} tag.

And as for things whose production was halted in an official context, but which were later completed unofficially, like the final Dalek Chronicle — that's something else entirely, and indeed the benefit of the term "Unproduced", as I argued earlier, is that it allows us to communicate "this was never completed in an official context" while remaining agnostic as to whether the story was ever materially completed, or indeed released, albeit in an unofficial context. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Leekley Conundrum

To add to this discussion just a little... since it is about defining the scope of this page: I would like to readily note that the Leekley Bible items - bar Fathers and Brothers - would likely not fit the notion that is being laid out, given that they seem not to have actually been pitched at all. Having read the Bible, what is actually given is not story pitches, outlines or indeed any indication of an intent to produce said items... What is given are details of previous adventures in this reimagined universe from the 'in-universe' perspective itself of Borusa's scribe under Borusa's instruction. And I can find no reference in In-Vision 108 or Doctor Who: Regeneration to suggest that these would actually ever be utilised from a production standpoint. (I mean, the whole thing reads as a short story within the proposed universe rather than a production document... but that's a discussion of its own.) So, I would like to question their inclusion here. JDPManjoume ☎ 16:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Are they really? That's very intriguing. If they're in-universe, they should definitely be covered as such. Probably as {{invalid}} on Rule 4 grounds, of course. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Though I am not sure how well they could be detailed. The Bible as whole would be easy in terms of the framing narrative but the individual adventures... well, for instance, the scribe's retelling of what is amusingly deemed 'Tomb of the Cybs' is all of three lines long. (And having just checked The Nth Doctor to try and further clarify the matter for myself - Note 51 of Chapter 6 (page 306 in the ebook copy) attached to the section of the book that notes the Bible's creation and existence (page 291) states that these short indications "probably gave rise to the unfounded rumour that Amblin proposed to remake original television series episodes".)

(Re. validity - obviously something that would need to be detailed in-depth elsewhere but it might well be a difficult one to nail down in terms of intention, given that Leekley would've of course been writing with the intention and perception that he was actually being continuous with the TV series. One section of dialogue from the Bible in which Borusa comments to the reader; "I, for example, in an earlier regeneration, became a megalomanic. Happily; it was a phase that passed." is commented upon Jean-Marc & Randy Lofficier in note 44 of Nth Doctor, as Leekley's attempt to "explain away the Borusa of The Five Doctors (6K), as if this took place after the original series." Certainly quite a conversation to be had there!) JDPManjoume ☎ 16:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And potentially Rule 3 - unless we say that it was indeed released to its intended audience of Amblin Entertainment execs? Maybe a bit of a strange interpretation there. – n8 (☎) 16:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Was the Leekley Bible not printed in full in The Nth Doctor? A delayed public release is still an official release (see Doctor Who and the Time War among others — and of course there's Shada). Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 16:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, just excerpts within Nth Doctor and Doctor Who: Regeneration. Rule 3 would definitely an easier point on which to rule it out. JDPManjoume ☎ 16:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Had to look to refresh my memory, but actually what's printed in Doctor Who: Regeneration is the full text of the Bible. I don't think the way it's formatted would let us treat it as a story, though. – n8 (☎) 19:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Your earlier discussion led me to the supposition that there was some sort of framing narrative, and then the 'mangled' descriptions of classic episodes were presented as in-universe documents whose existence was presented within the framing narrative. I figure that if we can cover The Book of the War as a story, we ought to be able to do the same for something like that. Was that description inaccurate? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 19:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say you have a fairly accurate description there. Hm, I wasn't familiar with The Book of the War but I think with it in mind, we could be able to cover the bible and these brief descriptions in a similar manner... JDPManjoume ☎ 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

After further investigation, I have run into a strange conundrum.

In The Nth Doctor, Jean-Marc Lofficier is quite clear on his belief that John Leekley meant for The Chronicles of Doctor Who to fit in with the continuity of the TV series (and that the BBC approved it as such), highlighting several direct continuity references, and the fact that none of the more "radical" details in the new lore really contradict TV accounts, even if they might go against the 'standard' understanding of the TV stories in reference books and in later sources. In fact, Lofficier points out several points on which the Fathers and Brothers script altered bits of Chronicles of Doctor Who to remove continuity with the TV series; Chronicles passes Rule 4, Fathers and Brothers (which postdates it) does not.

But Doctor Who: Regeneration, which is the source that actually published The Chronicles of Doctor Who in a licensed context, the story is given a foreword. And that foreword by Gary Russell makes completely opposite claims, describing it as "essentially a reinvention of the series from scratch leading off from John Leekley's pilot script and stting up what may as well have been an entirely new programme that merely used the original series' name and some of its trademarks". It is worth noting, also, that the foreword takes it as a given that the various "sample stories" like The Cybs given in the Leekley Bible were meant to be produced, and it speculates as to the legal trouble that might have caused. On this point at least, we pretty solidly know Lofficier is right and Russell is wrong; but does that mean we can discount the rest of the Regeneration foreword? Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 14:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Unproduced vs produced-but-unreleased?

Does a story count as "unproduced" even if it has been fully made and withheld from release for whatever reason (e.g. Gareth Roberts' Target Storybook entry)? WaltK ☎ 01:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure whether Roberts' infamous Storybook story was finished by the time the plug was pulled. Do we have any certainty on that?

This factual quibble aside, the question is a good one, and one which doesn't really have an answer yet because the situation is so rare. It seems clearly incorrect to call “unproduced” something which, materially, was produced (and in a licensed context, too), but was merely withheld from the public for one reason or another.

The Pilot Episode, for example, is considered an {{invalid}} source, not {{unprod}}, despite everyone involved in 1963 having agreed not to release it; although of course, it eventually did make its way to a public release, albeit presented more as an episode-length "deleted scene". The second-oldest example of the "it was ready to go but they decided not to broadcast" situation, Journey into Time, is also an invalid source, not an “unproduced” one. But for that one, while the audio remains unavailable, we do have the script.

Much as it is problematic to call “unproduced” what is actually a finished product, however, there can be some difficulty in calling an “invalid story” a work which none of our editors could possibly have access to. Invalid sources are meant to be sources — things which can be used as sources for non-DWU pages.

It's all very peculiar. Perhaps the creation of a new tag, something like {{withheld}}, is what we need. Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the event that Roberts' story was not finished and therefor doesn't count, another story that would potentially fall under that category is that recently pulled-from-release Torchwood audio. That alone brings up an additional question: when can a story officially be classified as unproduced/unreleased/whatever? WaltK ☎ 02:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, when there's been a clear announcement that it has been cancelled/will be withheld is a good start. In some cases, though, it seems we do use a common-sensical "if it was announced fifteen years ago and is still not out..." criterion in the absence of any statements one way or the other. I don't believe a standard time-span exists, however. Any suggestions?Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 02:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving few items until can be cited

• Sleep of the Dread
• The Crow Trap
• It Came From Earth
• Mainstream Media

Moving the above items to here for now until they can be cited. Had no luck finding any mention of them, not even in a passing press release or as a working title for anything. JDPManjoume ☎ 20:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

TEDW 12 joke

Have been contacted by Jonathan Morris re. The Fragile Shifting Force of Gravity, The Invisibles, Inside the Console to let it be known that these 'proposals' were not genuine but infact jokes that made sense within the context of the relevant article with TEDW12. I have reverted the defacing notes that Jonathan had - with good intent - appended to their pages, and have added deletion tags. Have also advised him to make some sort of citeable tweet source, as that would be additionally useful. JDPManjoume ☎ 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan Morris has now kindly made a public tweet clarifing these three mentioned in TEDW12 as jokes; https://twitter.com/jonnymorris1973/status/1456685938080468999?s=20 JDPManjoume ☎ 18:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)