IF There Is A DOCTOR WHO Movie It Will Be In Continuity With The TV Series

I think Peter Griffin would like to comment.

well thank jesus for that. i felt like it wasnt canon and was its own standalone film, that it felt like it was a spit in the face to fans. especially those that have been watching these past 48 years. steven moffat is right, it would need to star the doctor of the series and be canon. other wise it could just have been any other time travelling movie. all they had to do was change aspects and it doesnt have anything to do with WHO. if they were to use the name of doctor who and wipe out 50 years of history, then to be honest, its just using the name to get audience members and making it stand out from other time travelling movies. im rabbling, make cuz im getting angry at the idea. and @darkclaw, whats the point even reading the article, if your not even a fan. dont like it, stay away from articles about things you dont like. its like for example if i dont like anything with batman, (which isnt the case, i love batman) then i would just stay away from batman news, cuz its not interesting to me.

The show essentially undergoes a soft reboot with each regeneration, so if they started the film with a New Doctor, that would be a way to keep it in continuity without requiring too much background knowledge from general audiences.

probably not,just like when peter cushing was the doctor in the dalek movies.

The show does have continuity, it just also has built in ways of explaining away changes.

@Ron - you clearly know very little or grasp very little about Doctor Who.

@Ron since it's not for you, I'll take your incorrect ramblings as the supposition of the ill-informed. I love how everyone jumps on the special effects GET OVER IT. Effects don't make something BETTER, in fact over reliance on them tend to make things far worse as it takes away attention, time, and money from the budget. The same way people pass up great games because of the graphics, it just means you don't have an interest in story or the experience, just things looking pretty. The continuity of Doctor Who is actually pretty tight and the writers are pretty huge reasons why. And his regenerations are A) limited and don't happen all that frequently. He's only changed 11 times in 50 years. That ON AVERAGE twice a decade. Pretty good all told. And There have been a WILD variation of Doctors. The way the Doctor is interpreted ranges pretty wildly between Baker, McCoy, McGann, Eccleston, Tennant and Smith. I haven't seen much before Six, but between 6 and 11 they're pretty damn different.

what continuity, the authors are either crazy or don't know the meaning of the word. My guess would be the later

Goddamn thank you!! It would've been so pointless to reboot the ongoing show just for a movie.

^other great examples would be Bond's intros and Jack Sparrow's.

I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who but i don't think a big screen movie is warranted. I think a made for TV movie would suffice. Unless they made an origin story of how he stole the T.A.R.D.I.S., along with the destruction of Gallafrey and the Time War; but some stories maybe are better left untold. It would also be nice to see a Three Doctors film with Omega portraying the villian.

This is relieving news. They can do the biggest-budget movie they want to, as long as Moffat, Russel T Davis, or Neil Gaiman pen(or all three) pen the thing. Then they'll have my super-important American permission to do the film.

We need a "Three Doctor's" movie. Have Smith star, and bring back Eccelston and Tenant. If RTD and SM dueted on that script, it would be mindblowing. They do no wrong, especially RTD. Remember "Blink"???