MovieChat Forums > Dr. Who and the Daleks Discussion > What the hell is this movie!?!?!

What the hell is this movie!?!?!

posted 14 years ago by underworld101
38 replies | jump to latest

"The Doctor" is not a Time Lord. He's a normal person.

In fact, he's an old fuddy-duddy grandfather who just "invents" a TIME TRAVELING SPACE SHIP in his backyard. For no reason, it looks like a police box. The interior of the Tardis looks like a low-budget version of the lab in the Absent Minded Professor.

The daleks are not deadly but rather bumbling robots that shoot harmless "stun-steam". They talk to each other as though there are creatures inside the daleks, as if daleks are a robot shell that some mutated creatures pilots... and then when the protagonists crack one open.. it's empty. But not so empty that one of the main characters can't hop inside and operate it.

I know this movie is old, etc. But I was at least hoping for it to be an actual "Doctor Who" movie, and not a movie *called* Doctor Who that is only loosely based on a few ideas inspired from the show. If I had seen this back in 1965 my jaw would have hit the floor... unless I was 11 years old or younger, which seems to be the target audience.

To put this in perspective, if you thought the recent Star Trek "reboot" was bad, imagine changing Star Trek so that Spock is boy wizard (from Earth) who has magical powers of witchcraft. Chekov is a vampire that sparkles. Kirk is a robot built by Spock. Uhura is a precocious 8 year old girl who stows away on the Enterprise, which is actually a magical airplane that can travel to the moon, built by Chekov's confused Grandfather Mr. Vulcan. On the moon they all discover a lovable "Klingon" who's sad because he's lost his herd of Moon-bears. The crew of the enterprise then reunite the Klingon with his bears. The End.

I think this movie's only saving grace are the undisguised lava-lamps.

[–] apostasia 14 years ago

Yes, I'm afraid it's simply a remake of an old William Hartnell story in order to cash in on the popularity of the Daleks at the height of 60s Dalekmania. As you can tell, they've watered it down substantially for lowest common denominator consumption - most particularly by making the Doctor a human inventor rather than a Time Lord (not that we know back in William Hartnell's day that *he* was a Time Lord, either!).

Just a painted face on a trip down suicide row

[–] Luna713 14 years ago

Admittedly, the movie differs from the television show in many ways. For instance, the Doctor being a human, and Barbara being his granddaughter and Ian her bumbling idiot of a boyfriend, rather than Barbara and Ian being a teenage Susan's school teachers.

Despite these changes, the movie is virtually identical to the first ever Dalek serial "The Daleks," the second Doctor Who serial of the first season, at the end of 1963.

The daleks are not deadly but rather bumbling robots that shoot harmless "stun-steam".

Actually, this is not really true at all. Yes, the Daleks shoot stun-steam. But so did the Daleks in the serial "The Daleks". When Ian tried to escape in the TV serial when the Daleks captured him, they shot a paralytic beam at him--he couldn't walk for hours.

Additionally, in the movie, the Daleks did actually kill people, not just shoot harmless "stun-steam". They killed one of the Thals when they came to collect food. Not to mention, the Daleks of the serial in Season 1 Classic Who were much less "kill first ask questions later" than the Daleks of New Who. Their portrayal in this film was almost spot-on with their portrayal in "The Daleks".

They talk to each other as though there are creatures inside the daleks, as if daleks are a robot shell that some mutated creatures pilots... and then when the protagonists crack one open.. it's empty. But not so empty that one of the main characters can't hop inside and operate it.

The Dalek shells are inhabited by a mutated creature. If you were watching the scene right after they disabled that Dalek in the prison cell, Ian reached in with the Thal's cloak and pulled something out. When the Doctor and the others leave, we see a green, mutant appendage poke itself out from underneath the cloak--exactly like happened in the TV serial.

not so empty that one of the main characters can't hop inside and operate it.

Ian didn't operate it. He commented that there were numerous controls inside and the Doctor told him not to touch any--they would push/pull him around in the shell.

....not a movie *called* Doctor Who that is only loosely based on a few ideas inspired from the show.

Loosely based?!?!?! Sorry, but have you actually watched the serial from season 1 Classic Who? Because while I admit, as stated in my first paragraph, that there were several changes [Doctor being human, Barbara his granddaughter, Ian her boyfriend and a bumbling idiot, Susan a little kid not a teen, and the one Thal surviving his fall into the pit in the mountain], if you set these (comparatively minor) details aside: The movie was exactly the same as the TV serial "The Daleks"--all the plots twists (the Doctor claiming a broken fluid link needing mercury, the Thals being pacifists and so-called "mutants") were exactly as in the TV serial.

That said, how can you possibly claim it to be only "loosely based" on a "few ideas"?

[–] ContinentalOp 14 years ago

Luna, I think your great post was wasted on one of the Nu Hu ''experts'' that have cropped up in recent years, who go around making fools of themselves on boards related to the older series.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

[–] Welz82 14 years ago

Really enjoyed this film as a kid, and still enjoy it today. Doesn't bother me if its slightly different than the TV version. It's a fun Sci-fi adventure.

The only downside for me now (as an adult) is Roy Castle in 'Jar Jar Binks' mode, as the films goes on he does redeem himself a bit (mainly he doesnt fall over as much!)

[–] captgage-1 8 years ago

Well put, though I can't say TOO much, having seen it decades ago when I wasn't that familiar with Dr. Who. I remember preferring Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. There was just something about these fanciful movies. Friends used to label them "the salt-shaker robots." Just fanciful, family-friendly '60s Brit sci-fi, even if the 2nd movie had kind of a thin plot..

[–] doorintosummer-1 14 years ago

Terrific and knowledgable post, Luna!

Also, it should be pointed out, when this film was made there had been no mention of 'Time Lords' or 'Gallifrey' or where exactly the Doctor had come from in the show. It was known that he was an exile from somewhere. He could have been a human from the future and a different (colonized) planet so far as continuity was established in those days.

I, personally, really enjoy the two Cushing films. Great fun, beautiful color widescreen photography. Cushing is indeed different from Hartnell's portrayal, but that can be chalked up as an 'alternative' regeneration. As Stephen Moffat wisely says, in a fictional universe that posits both time travel and parallel universes, there simply cannot be a continuity error! ;)

[–] Luna713 14 years ago

Thanks.

And, yes, as you point out, we did not yet know The Doctor was a Time Lord or even an alien. In fact, as I noticed after having watched this movie, when watching Season 3 Classic Who, there was an episode in which the Doctor referred to himself as a human being. I believe it was the serial "The Savages," but I don't remember which episode.

[–] rmm413-1 10 years ago

In the very first story of the TV series, An Unearthly Child (1963), the First Doctor says: "Have you ever thought what it's like to be wanderers in the fourth dimension? Have you? To be exiles? Susan and I are cut off from our own planet, without friends or protection." A little later Susan says: "I was born in another time, another world." It was made clear from day one in the classic series that the Doctor and his granddaughter are from a different planet, i.e. they are aliens. The show especially goes to pains to stress how different Susan is from Earth children, and the Doctor clearly does not even begin to understand Earthlings for many episodes into the first season. Later it is also made clear the Meddling Monk, another time traveler, is also from that same unnamed place as the Doctor. At the end of The Massacre in the third season, the First Doctor laments when he thinks Steven has left him: "Perhaps I should go home, back to my own planet."

I've seen every single William Hartnell episode, including the reconstructed episodes. Peter Cushing's "Dr. Who" had absolutely nothing to do with Hartnell's original creation. Cushing's version of the Doctor was in my opinion far less complex, authoritative, witty, and interesting and had no character development or gravitas. He was just a nice, pleasant, simplistic old grandpa. Beyond that, a lot of the plot elements were indeed the same, but the tone, the nuance, the depth, the seriousness, the atmosphere, the menace of the film vs. the show were radically different. Even with the plot similarities, the movie hardly reminded me of the show at all. I think "The Daleks" is one of the best Doctor Who serials; this very childish film pales rather radically in comparison in my eyes. Even the Target novelization of the story was much better than this film.

[–] Luna713 10 years ago

I've seen all of Hartnell's episodes (including the reconstructions), as well. I guess I just didn't remember those particular lines when I posted the previous comment. Although, the comment by Susan doesn't necessarily mean she was born on a different planet--people often refer to a very different place (in history or location on the same planet) as being a "different world". I could see how one could make an argument either way on that one.

I didn't really have a strong opinion on the movie, if I remember correctly (which I probably don't, it's been 4 years since I watched "The Daleks" and since I watched the two Cushing movies). I do know I found it a bit dull and boring, but mainly because it was a rehashing of the Hartnell serial I'd watched, at most, a few days prior.

[–] trollomatic 11 years ago

<<<As Stephen Moffat wisely says, in a fictional universe that posits both time travel and parallel universes, there simply cannot be a continuity error! ;)

"Inferno"

[–] supercygnus 11 years ago

Spot on Luna.

[–] soneil12 14 years ago

It did have differences from the tv show but not as much as you think. It was pretty much a screen version of the second doctor who story and in most respects (including some of the dialog) is just like the original William Hartnell episode.
Most of the differences stem from things you mentioned like the fact there was no explanation about the shape of the tardis but let's face it - how many people who watch the tv show know why it's that shape. Only people who have seen the very first episode would know why. Also the doctor not being an alien and barbara being his granddaughter rather than susan's schoolteacher. And minor effects differences like the dalek firing steam and no tardis sound.

Your points about the daleks are mostly invalid. In the tv show they *are* mutated creatures that control the machines. Even the new series makes that clear. They were never just robots. Ian getting inside one was exactly like that in the tv show (you weren't watching very closely if you didn't notice them take the creature out first). In fact that whole scene and many others from the movie were almost identical to the way it played out in the tv series.

Sure the movie had its faults and was corny in many ways but that's what the original tv show was like.

You main problem seems to be that you have assumptions about the tv show that are wrong. Probably why you apparently didn't like the star trek movie too since that's generally been well received by trek fans.

[–] oscar-35 10 years ago

Odd, how the new spoiled Whovians are so critical and forget to put this Dr. Who effort into the context of the time and BBC matters then. Everyone's a critic ???!! Peter Cushing did a great job and funny how he's left out of any lists of guys playig the Doctor From Gallifrey role. Even When they include Paul McGann in his film version in '99. Disengenousness.

Two reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] WeirdRaptor 10 years ago

No, they don't list him among the men who played The Doctor because he didn't play The Doctor. He played some absent-minded HUMAN professor from EARTH who just happened to invent a time machine. The Doctor is a Gallifreyan TIME LORD from a race of human-looking aliens from a distant solar system. He STOLE an ANTIQUE TARDIS from one of his people's museums. Paul McGann gets listed among those men because the character he played falls within the latter description. And his film is from 1996, not 1999.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] oscar-35 10 years ago

I understand you. I'm a Whovian completist. Sorry, can't agree with 'splitting hairs' Whovian snobbery from recent overly myopic fans. Nit-picking is not my suit. '96 vs '99...LOL. Someone else who joins me in thinking 'out of the box' Doctor Who TARDIS box and agrees with my POV. Video LINK:
http://youtu.be/No7L2h-McjM

But your views, however, looks to be fannish 'anorak' very narrow. And fine for you, but you miss the point. Clearly ego here is part of this for you. No me. I'm not playing. I'm trying to get my closed minded opponents to look at the bigger Whovian universe. If you don't, your loss.
The actions of the Doctor Who intellectual property rights holders to morph or change such relative trivia (you mentioned) later to a newer convenient version of 'The Doctor' to suit their everyday practical TV production needs makes little importance to a huge audience of English '60s sci-fi viewers. We can be happy with our Doctor, the excellant Peter Cushing.

Let's see 'Doctor Who and the Daleks' trailer again...LINK:
http://youtu.be/SSEVh-gpEYY

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] WeirdRaptor 10 years ago

This isn't 'splitting hairs', my views are not narrow, nor does ego have anything to do with why I do not view Cushing as one of the Doctors. He isn't The Doctor, plain and simple. The character he played has nothing to do with the wonderful alien man from Gallifrey nor anything else in the Whoverse. I corrected on the date of McGann's movie because in a world where it is easy to get your facts straight, you have no business listing the wrong year.

The bigger picture of the Whoverse is that it is a great TV show that is now over half a century old with a long history of moments both great and mediocre. I accept every actor who played The Doctor in the actual series as I accept every Doctor from it, so my views are not narrow. I'm sorry, but Cushing's character isn't The Doctor. He's more lke a character from a Disney movie from that time. Unless the series states Cushing's Doctor as canon, I will not accept him. Also, The Doctor was never 'morphed' by the rights holders. He was stated to be an alien from a distant galaxy within minutes of his introduction in the very first episode, The Unearthly Child. The implication that he stole The TARDIS was also ALWAYS there. Also, to refer to a viewership from England as 'huge' is laughable at best.

William Hartnell was the Doctor. Patrick Troughton was The Doctor. Jon Pertwee was The Doctor. Tom Baker was The Doctor. Peter Davison was The Doctor. Colin Baker was The Doctor. Sylvester McCoy was The Doctor. Paul McGann was The Doctor. Christopher Eccleston was The Doctor. David Tennant was The Doctor. Matt Smith was the Doctor. Peter Capaldi is the current Doctor. Cushing does not count, nor will he ever. Show me episode of him from the series, Classic or New, and I'll change my mind. And no, I won't watch the trailer. If Cushing wanted to be counted, he'd have played him on the show. I'm sorry if my opinion of a pair of moronic cash-ins don't match yours', but disregarding two non-canon ventures in favor of fifty years worth of other material does not elitism make.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] oscar-35 10 years ago

Excellant. How typical for an anorak fannish rants and their drivel. Thanks for proving my point with your closed mindedness. I know when I being patronized here. Ignorance is bliss for you. BTW: Peter Cushing was offered a part on the children's TV show and the film your don't call Doctor Who was written by Doctor Who production members. LMAO. Don't get me started on the silliness of Doctor Who canon matters? There were to be no guns, sexual matters and overt violence on the original classic Doctor Who TV show, also. That's long gone. Today's shows, all are included and glorified. So NO canon rules now, chum. Just using your ranting postion to ultimate silly conclusion.
BYE.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/photog1z/funny%20stuff%205/dram aqueen.jpg

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] WeirdRaptor 10 years ago

You're the only one spitting drivel. You have yet to explain how not liking a pair of movies no one even cares about anymore is close-minded. I know Cushing was offered the role, but he didn't take it. No, there are canon rules. The show is still very much the same thing it always was in spirit. The Doctor is an alien in a stolen phone box that' bigger on the inside from a distant solar system. He has adventures through time and space. That was not changed at all over the years. The show has evolved as it must to survive. That is still not the same as 'warping' it. Cushing played a Disney character who invented a time machine. That is not part of the canon, nor will it ever be. In the end, you are an idiot.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] oscar-35 10 years ago

It's science fiction and the films were made by Doctor Who TV production company. But it's NOT Doctor Who ???? (sarc).
Repeating yourself over and over shows lack of comprehension and thinking on your part. Clearly your childish fan-ego is grossy involved in hating anyone with a different POV. Such name calling and smart a$$ comments have never been very intellectually worth my time. Such stale discussions are boring and trite.

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] WeirdRaptor 10 years ago

No, the films were made by Amicus Productions to cash in on Dalekmania. They are an adaptation of Doctor Who, and not even good adaptations at that. BBC made Doctor Who. BBC had nothing to do with the creation of these two films. You can't even get your facts straight in the age of the information highway. I'm sorry, but you don't get to act like you're better than me when you don't even know who made Doctor Who and the Daleks. None of the people who worked on this film EVER had anything to do with the show's production (except for Bernard Cribbins, but he's just actor, and the creative team of the Revived Series had no idea he was in one of the Cushing films until AFTER they had cast him as Wylf Mott).

I'm still waiting for an explanation to my question. How is my dislike of two non-canon films closed-minded? Also, if the Peter Cushing Doctor Who films were SO good, then how they stopped after two but the real Doctor Who is still around? You also have yet to explain how the series has been warped in any, shape, or from what it originally was. And no, gradually changing over the years doesn't count. That's necessary evolution for survival. Not warping.

And for the record, I only dislike moronic POVs.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] oscar-35 9 years ago

From the IMDB credits and confirmed by my research.

Writing credits
Terry Nation (based on the B.B.C. television serial)

In a Peter Cushing interview on You Tube, Mr. Cushing confirms that the film was written by Terry Nation.
Who am I going to believe my eyes and IMDB or an anonymous trollish forum poster that has nothing to refuse thse facts? I'll go with the facts.

Your moronic previous post maybe should NOT have been dignified with a honorable reply. I'm sure the readers will agree with me that I'm done on this thread oppression of yours. Maybe others will be more sharing, helpful, and less judgemental, AND be ON TOPIC. That would be nice. I'm moving in a positive direction... my work is done here.

Three reasons for Internet bullying of others with public forum attacks: fear, ignorance and envy.

[–] WeirdRaptor 9 years ago

Terry Nation did not write for this movie, you moron. A quick check on other sources do not wield his name being attached to this film. IMDb also credits William Shakespeare among the writers of the various movies that have been based on his work, but we both know he died before the technology to make films was even a concept. He's credited because it is based on something else (something far superior) that he did write. Your work never even began because you have proven nothing. You have no facts and you have provided no satisfactory answers to any questions asked of you. You are a failure as a snob.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] paulbeardsley 9 years ago

I corrected on the date of McGann's movie because in a world where it is easy to get your facts straight, you have no business listing the wrong year.

Okay...

in the very first episode, The Unearthly Child.

...but it's okay to get the title wrong?

[–] paulbeardsley 9 years ago

Oscar, WeirdRaptor is basically right, although that does not excuse his obnoxious tone.

Peter Cushing did indeed do a good job of playing a version of the Doctor in a remake of Serial B that was (arguably) lighter-weight, more accessible, faster paced, and which gave audiences a chance to see Daleks in colour and on a big screen. In the sixties, repeats of Doctor Who were uncommon and home video machines were non-existent, so the film was great for those who had missed Serial B.

It's true that the Doctor and Susan's unearthly origins were mentioned in the very first episode of the TV series, but at the time, lore was less important than seeing an eccentric man with a TARDIS confront the dastardly Daleks. In film terms, the priority was to get the protagonist from England to Skaro as quickly as possible, so making the Doctor an elderly inventor with precocious grandchildren made better sense than holding up the action to make the audience swallow some irrelevant origin story.

In terms of Whovian fandom, however, it is the continuing story that matters. Hartnell originally had the two adventures in question, and he handed the torch, or the TARDIS key (choose your metaphor) to Patrick Troughton, and so it went on until Peter Capaldi. Peter Cushing was not part of that continuing story; he merely played a character similar to the Doctor in two stories that were merely based on existing adventures.

David Banks and Trevor Martin played the Doctor in Doctor Who stage plays. Again, these stories are not part of the ongoing story, so these actors do not appear in the line-ups either.

[–] Naldoman 14 years ago

This is a rather fun 60's sci-fi, if you like 60's sci-fi that big on dystopian concepts, but weak on budget and effects. I found the whole adventure fun and not quite as goofy as the standard Dr. Who. Also the events of the film don't rely entirely on the Doctor's knowledge, wits, or tricks -- the girl has a lot of moxie, and even the foppish boyfriend holds his own in a jam.

This falls in the ballpark of films like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" from about the same era.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052948/

[–] movienerd666 14 years ago

i think the film is ok but does not come close to being as good as the serial its based on, to be honest there have been way worse doctor who episodes (love and monsters perhaps?)

[–] multiplepov-1 13 years ago

Decades ago, I saw part of this movie in a double-feature science fiction show at the old Fox Venice (Venice, California). This was soon after the movie came out, so the Dr. Who show hadn't really taken off yet. I saw only part of this movie because I wandered out into the lobby and found a teeming crowd waiting for the second feature. The manager came out into the lobby and apologized to us saying that nobody at the theater had actually seen this movie before and had booked it on the rumor that the daleks had a cult following. He agreed that the movie was so godawful that the rumor must have been a lie.

-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] houseandsupermanfan 10 years ago

I would just like to point out that in the cannon of actual Doctor Who stories the Daleks do have creatures inside of the metal shell. Actually, the internal creature is the Dalek and the outer shell is just a shell.

[–] darth_timon 10 years ago

When this film was made, it was with the intention of cashing in on some major Doctor Who attention at the time. The Daleks (then as now) were extremely popular and there was the opportunity for a commercial hit.

The film doesn't fit into the Doctor Who continuity or 'canon', as this Doctor isn't a Time Lord from Gallifrey, so in the eyes of most fans of the TV show (and the BBC for that matter) it sort of sits apart from the rest of Doctor Who.

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/

[–] hachmom-1 9 years ago

Two thoughts.

1 As a late end, American, Baby Boomer, I saw this film long before I ever got to see the Tom Baker Doctor on PBS later in the 70's. So for all the failings This was my first Doctor and I came back for more.
If they passed over Hartnell for Cushing, its the same thing that was done for the Quatermass films. Those films are acclaimed, but relatively few people have seen the original serials.

2 Secondly, Steven Moffat himself has given the films a place in the cannon, as fictional biopics of the Doctor. There was also a plan to acknowledge the Cushing films during the 50th anniversary special, but the couldn't afford the rights. Personally I find this explanation quite satisfactory.

It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices

[–] WeirdRaptor 9 years ago

Point 1: False. Doctor Who is bigger than ever and DVDs from all eras of the show have been flying off the shelves. A lot of people have seen the original, superior serials.

Point 2: Fair enough.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] paulbeardsley 9 years ago

I doubt many people have sat through Serial B. I have - I utterly love it - but 7 25 minute episodes of black and white low budget TV is bound to be less watched than a fast-moving colour film of half the length.

That's the clock done, now for the chairs.

[–] WeirdRaptor 9 years ago

I had trouble getting a copy of it, because it was sold out when I tried. I think more have seen it than you give them credit for, and that is beside the point, anyway.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 8 years ago

Uh-oh, someone hasn't watched the show they pretend to defend the honour of.

Where to start...

In fact, he's an old fuddy-duddy grandfather who just "invents" a TIME TRAVELING SPACE SHIP in his backyard.

The first Doctor was a fuddy-duddy grandfather and he did at least claim to have invented the TARDIS (Susan in fact claims to have named it). The only difference was that they don't state that he built one in his backyard (though he may have on his, at that point, unnamed planet and time).

The daleks are not deadly but rather bumbling robots that shoot harmless "stun-steam".

You'll hate the new series then where a Dalek actually begs for mercy (nothing in this film, even at its worst, is anywhere near as ridiculously terrible as that).

They talk to each other as though there are creatures inside the daleks, as if daleks are a robot shell that some mutated creatures pilots... and then when the protagonists crack one open.. it's empty. But not so empty that one of the main characters can't hop inside and operate it.

Er... The Daleks are machines operated by mutant creatures inside and in this film the protagonists do pull the Dalek mutant out of the machine before Ian gets in. You should pay attention before criticising something.

I know this movie is old, etc. But I was at least hoping for it to be an actual "Doctor Who" movie, and not a movie *called* Doctor Who that is only loosely based on a few ideas inspired from the show.

By "loosely based on a few idea inspired from the show" you mean adapted from the television play written by Terry Nation, creator of the Daleks. Know your facts before commenting. It is pretty sad that you are complaining about something being untrue to a show that you haven't even seen the original serial upon which this is based.

If I had seen this back in 1965 my jaw would have hit the floor... unless I was 11 years old or younger, which seems to be the target audience.

No sh!t, Sherlock!

To put this in perspective, if you thought the recent Star Trek "reboot" was bad, imagine changing Star Trek so that Spock is boy wizard (from Earth) who has magical powers of witchcraft. Chekov is a vampire that sparkles. Kirk is a robot built by Spock. Uhura is a precocious 8 year old girl who stows away on the Enterprise, which is actually a magical airplane that can travel to the moon, built by Chekov's confused Grandfather Mr. Vulcan. On the moon they all discover a lovable "Klingon" who's sad because he's lost his herd of Moon-bears. The crew of the enterprise then reunite the Klingon with his bears. The End.

Except this follows the outline of the television serial closely other than condensing the play to fit a film and changing a few relationships and ages, as well as adding a a starting segment that the serial didn't feature (as it was the second or third serial depending on whether you split 'An Unearthly Child' and '100,000 BC' as many fans historically used to do).

P.S. In this movie they never actually say the Doctor or Dr. Who, if you like, is a human, they simply never say that he is an alien!