.jpg) |
| Copyright BBC TV |
As far as I know, there were only two Dr. Who Annuals in the '60s that bore William Hartnell's image on the covers*, the first one being for 1966 and the second for '67, though they were each issued in '65 and '66 respectively. I've owned the first one for many a year now and it's not a difficult Annual to obtain, popping up on eBay fairly regularly.
(*There was also a World Distributors book called Doctor Who And The Invasion From Space, but it wasn't described as an 'Annual' and contained what is now regarded as the first illustrated original Dr. Who novel, or perhaps more accurately, novella.)
The second book is the rarer of the two as it had a much smaller print run than its predecessor and therefore usually fetches a higher price on the collectors' market. I recently acquired one for not-a-lot-of-dosh, though it needs some 'corrective' work on it to bring it up to par, but luckily I'm quite good at that sort of thing and it's shaping up nicely.
Anyway, thought you might like to see the covers, so that's them above and below. I've also included the covers to the first Annual just so you can see both books featuring William Hartnell - just in case you're completists who wouldn't be satisfied with seeing only one of them. I believe the art is by Walter Howarth. Enjoy! (And comments welcome.)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
20 comments:
Thanks for posting these Kid, as I think I had one of them as a child. But one thing that interests me about the covers is the use of "Dr Who" rather than "Doctor Who". As a child, and probably well into my 50s to be honest, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid at that, as I thought the character's name really was Dr Who. And to be dangerously controversial, I actually believe that referring to him as "Dr Who" really WAS acceptable in those days. The end credits, at least well into the Third Doctor's time, listed the title character as "Doctor Who" rather than "The Doctor", and in at least one William Hartnell episode that I watched recently on BBC iPlayer (The War Machines) various characters refer to him as "Dr Who". But when I inadvertently wrote "Dr Who" in a book a few years ago, a friend told me it was a mistake and the title was really "Doctor Who" (presumably with a missing question mark), while the character was just "The Doctor". I looked it up online and was mortified to find out that he was seemingly right and I was wrong. But now I'm starting to think this is an after-the-fact rationalization, and that the original writers and producers of the series weren't too fussy about calling him "Dr Who" (even if this was taken as a kind of nickname given to him by Earth people, rather than his real given name). Do you know when the idea that it was ignorant sacrilege to write "Dr Who" emerged? My guess would be the late 1970s or early 1980s, when Doctor Who fandom was really developing a life of its own and people started taking it much more seriously.
I think you're right about when 'Dr Who' (or Dr. Who as I usually write) came to be regarded as sacrilege, AM. Even the novels (or at least one of them) of the '60s referred to him as Dr Who so it was quite common (as in usual) to do so. I think it was when the 'geeks' started to regard the show as their 'personal property' that such distinctions about the name arose. Apologies for such a short reply to your interesting and informative comment, but you said everything worth saying.
Thanks Kid - I'm really pleased with your reply, as it agrees with my thoughts exactly.
I was recently watching some Who episodes from the Tom Baker era on BBC iplayer and the end credits were still calling him Doctor Who and not The Doctor so I'm not sure when the change came. I didn't realise it was incorrect to write Dr Who rather than Doctor Who.
A bit like Benjamin Disraeli, AM, who said "My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me." I find myself in agreement with him.
******
It's only that SOME people consider it incorrect, CJ, but I certainly don't. Nor, once, did the BBC.
The first annual was given to me as a child by my Nan's next door neighbour. The second annual, I was lucky enough to find in a charity shop about 10 years ago for 50p! The wife wanted me to put it on eBay immediately but I resisted and still have it. I just had a look at a covers gallery and there is a fan-made 1965 annual and an alternative 1966 cover that wasn't used plus a whole glut of others, official and un- official. Very interesting.
http://www.tonystrading.co.uk/galleries/annuals/drwho.htm
I was given the first annual for my 7th Birthday as Dr Who was the show of all shows on television at the time. Right I am now going to have a seance and demand to know why I wasn't given the second annual on my eighth birthday. As for Dr/ Doctor Who I now call it Dr What.
Wise decision, keeping the '67 Annual, M. I saw the fan Annual a few years back when it was first advertised, but didn't buy it, and I've shown the unused '66 cover on the blog before. It's hard to see the details with any great clarity, but it might've been rejected because the Tardis was red and also because there was a Dalek (or so it looks like) on it.
******
Talking of seances, LH, when I saw Bob Hope at the Edinburgh Playhouse in 1984, he said that every Friday night, him, Milton Berle, George Burns, and a few other old guys got together and held a seance - and tried to contact the living! As for Dr. Who, he's now obviously Dr. Gay. Having said that, I found his debut episode quite entertaining (with a few reservations).
Are the boy and girl on the cover of the first annual and the back-cover of the second annual meant to be the Doctor's companions? Do they appear in the annuals? The Tardis on the back-cover of the second annual looks more like a hut than a police-box.
The 'second' Annual is actually the first, CJ - I put them in reverse order as I've shown the first book before (a few times). Yes, as I said in a previous post, the TARDIS is very far from accurate, and you're right - it looks like a garden shed. The Doc seems to be a lone wolf (not a 'bad wolf') in the Annuals, and he appears without any companions in the picture strip stories, as well as the text ones. Are the kids John and Gillian? Who knows, but maybe it was felt that as TV Comic readers were used to seeing Dr. Who with two kid companions, having two kids on the cover wouldn't hurt.
I don't know who John and Gillian are!
Well, you should know who they are, CJ, because they've been mentioned and shown on the blog before. It wouldn't surprise me to find that you'd even commented on some of those posts. John and Gillian are the two kids (supposedly grandchildren) who accompanied the Doctor on his adventures in TV Comic in the '60s.
I can only apologise for my poor memory, Kid - anyway I googled John & Gillian and apparently they were eventually revealed to be androids created by the Doctor, is that right? I don't understand why Dr Who in the '60s was allowed to deviate so much from the TV show - why couldn't TV Comic just use the Doctor's companions from the TV show? And those films starring Peter Cushing were even worse - the Doctor wasn't even an alien, just a doddery old human inventor as I recall. Why didn't they make a proper Dr Who film starring William Hartnell?
TV Comic couldn't use the Doctor's companions from the TV show because it would've cost them more to do so, and they'd maybe have needed the actors' permission to use their likenesses, CJ. Also, editors perhaps felt that readers would be able to relate more to two young kids than adult companions. And, I'd have to check to be sure, but when the first Dr. Who movie was made, I don't think the Time Lord/Gallifrey nonsense had yet been established. Didn't know about the android explanation for John and Gillian, but type 'The Land Of Happy Endings' into my blog's search box for an interesting tale, which may or may not explain their existence. As for William Hartnell not being in the movie, the explanation given at the time was that he was too busy working on the TV show. That may be true, but it may also be that he was little known in America and the film-makers wanted a bigger 'name' to lead the movie.
OK, thanks for all that information, Kid - very enlightening! I had a look at The Land Of Happy Endings but I didn't really understand it - were John & Gillian meant to be figments of the Doctor's imagination? And sorry to nitpick but in that post you said the 40th anniversary of Dr Who was in 1993 when it was actually 2003.
Actually, it was the date I mistyped, CJ (should've been 2003, not 1993), but it's sorted now. Are J & G figments of the Doc's imagination? You decide, CJ, you decide.
A lot of points brought up here -
Dr. What - actually this was the first comic strip, pre-TV Comic in Boys' World. It has been reprinted/updated in a Cor! Summer Special and Annual.
John & Gillian, my theory is much better than the Land of Happy Endings, that is they were simply 2 other grandchildren (cousins of Susan)!
Dr. or Doctor? - for the first incarnations it didn't matter either way. Perhaps it was when Target started the paperbacks that they decided it looked better written in full? As for being called "Dr. Who" by name, I think this only happened in the first movie and the Cadets cards?
The Annuals, as well as the 66 & 67 annuals, in August 65 photos were taken of the forthcoming 66 annual complete with a spine with a green cover and Daleks+Terrorkon and a mongol on the cover (from Marco Polo?). The jury is STILL out as to any pages were inside, but so far no-one has come forward. However, in recent years there has been an independent 65 annual made and very good it is too, albeit slightly pricey!
He was referred to as Doctor Who in 'Doctor Who And The Zarbi' by Bill Strutton, which was the 2nd Dr. Who novel, JP. As you know, Susan was Dr. Who's granddaughter, which makes us assume that the Doctor must've had a daughter - and he did, in a way. One was cloned from his severed hand, but as this was David Tennant's incarnation, any child his 'daughter' went on to have would've had to travel back in time to meet the first incarnation of her grandfather. Ooh, all this 'timey-wimey' stuff makes my head hurt.
I prefer to think that the first incarnation had at least one child to begat at least three grandchildren, even though it hasn't been mentioned. I like to keep things simple. Paradoxes do your head in!
🤔
I also prefer the idea that the Doc was married and had children, JP, and that Susan was one of his grandchildren. Of course, the traditional view (of anything) isn't popular among the woke and pc brigade pushing their own agendas, is it?
Post a Comment