Why doesn't the BBC simply remake some of the missing "Doctor Who" serials?

Ok, the much ballyhooed “An Adventure in Space and Time” docu-drama about the early days of the creation of “Doctor Who” aired tonight. I thought it was amusing and enjoyable - but not particularly enlightening about either the behind the scenes “drama” or the early days of TV production.

A thought that did occur to me was the idea of recreating early missing DW stories. Yes, I know there are animated reconstructions of lost episodes that follow along to many of the original soundtrack tapes. But I find many of them to be jarring and too odd to watch. (“Power of the Daleks” looks like the Terry Gilliam animation bits from “Monty Python.”) Why not simply do new live-action versions of the missing (or partially missing) serials? Since there is apparently an abundance of archival information - scripts, full audio recordings of the cast, hundreds of stills of the serials - on which to base sets and costumes, couldn’t some of the lost serials be remade?

I know that by the time even the first Cafe Society denizens read this far into my OP, there are at least a few who are furiously typing a reply that “[Story] simply CANNOT be remade because it was a perfect gem the first time out, and the cast was simply irreplaceable. I simply WILL NOT accept anyone but [actor] in the role of [companion character]!!!” But the fact is that DW was a fun romp, and not high art. The SFX were notoriously cheap, the sets wobbly cardboard, and the actors involved were typically not the most stellar thespians of the last 50 years. I mean, can anyone really say that actress Adrienne Hill was such a shining star, that no one else could ever take over the role of Katarina? Added to that is the fact that so few of the DW fans today have ever seen the original episodes, how can anyone justify the idea that any recreation would be a pale imitation? How could anybody actually know?

Yes, William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton were excellent, memorable actors and each added a lot of depth to the character(s). But if actors can recreate the role of Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes and the entire cast of the original Star Trek series, then I think the right actor certainly could recreate a decent new version of a particular former Doctor as well.

To be clear, I wouldn’t want to see the old stories updated and modernized. i don’t want to see a ‘dark re-imagining’ of the series along the lines of Tim Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” movie. Perhaps a little tweaking around the edges, but I’d like to see them remade straight-faced and in the same outlandish style of the pop art 1960s. I think it might be fun to see them remade in all their low-tech FX glory - analog clocks on the TARDIS console, 1920s style death-rays and all. At least one point in favor of the idea is that it wouldn’t be too expensive to replicate the original serials - given how notoriously low-budget the productions were.

So why not remake a few of the serials that have been completely or mostly lost? I’d like to see “Evil of the Daleks” in one form or another.

I think it’s simply a question of cost v benefit.

I’m old enough to have watched the first episode live :eek: and I’m a big fan of the whole series. (For me, Baker is just ahead of Tennant :cool:)
But, as the recent replaying of “An Adventure in Space and Time” plus repeating the first four episodes showed, the early episodes:

  • were rushed out (writers under pressure)
  • made on a low budget (wobbly scenery and unconvincing monsters)
  • were in black and white
  • had no special effects
  • had no over-arching storyline (different writers)

They were original, but now compare poorly to Russell Grant and Steven Moffat’s well-thought-out series-long plots with computerised special effects.
So why spend money making the odd missing episode, when (for example) teenagers would laugh at it?

Early Dr Who was a children’s show with vaguely educational aspirations made on a shoestring budget. The Daleks, perhaps more by luck than judgement, turned out to be a brilliant, iconic invention, but, apart from them, most of the early stuff was not only badly produced but badly (or at least hastily) written, and not at all aimed at an adult audience. The show took decades to evolve into what it is now. (I speak as someone who saw the opening episode, and most of the William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton episodes, on first run.)

Also:

  • often horribly padded (had more episodes than the plot needed)

Because it would cost a bloody fortune and hardly anybody would watch it.

It would be interesting, and I would probably watch it - but I agree that it would be what most networks would consider a failure.

Though I do have to admit the whole monster of the week format is the format that appeals to me. I really don’t like story arcs that you have to follow or you miss something.

[I felt that most series that started out monster of the week I liked much better than when they followed a whole story arc. Many people work evenings and can’t actually manage to follow everything when it is on TV and unless they have DVR/VCR tend to lose out until they can catch them in rerun on a early in the day marathon. Yes I know that more and more people are getting DVR and cable TV, but I have more buddys that end up tanking on a series because they end up with a full DVR, no time and figure that they are not going to bother. Hell, I have a full DVR, and can’t keep up with a couple series.

Wow, now there’s a brainfart. You mean Russell T Davies. (Russell Grant is a psychic)

Anyway, they do kind of remake the missing episodes when they animate them to the original sound recordings.