Doctor Who film

[biggytitbo]

Shitting crikey!


http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046098

LONDON -- "Harry Potter" director David Yates is teaming up with the BBC to turn its iconic sci-fi TV series "Doctor Who" into a bigscreen franchise.[/size]

Yates, who directed the last four Potter films, told Daily Variety that he is about to start work on developing a "Doctor Who" movie with Jane Tranter, BBC Worldwide's L.A.-based exec VP of programming and production.[/size]

Terrible, terrible mistake.

[mycroft]

The only Who film that would have been any good would have been made by Hammer in the 70s, with Edward Woodward as Dr. Who and Christopher Lee as the Master.

[papalaz4444244]

not even started the development.

This is just the same crap we've heard for years.

An unconnected reboot alienates fans and despite a decent US fandom the programme is still virtually unknown to the general public there.

Who would invest $50m^* in that?

^* _{bare mimimum estimate}

[biggytitbo]

If this happens it's awful for Doctor Who.


Doctor Who is a TV show. Matt Smith (or his TV succesor) is the Doctor.


Anything else isnt Doctor Who, and threatens Doctor Who's continuation as a TV show.

[papalaz4444244]

I have no personal interest in Dr Who becoming like Batman or whatever.

How many fucking times can you retell the same origins stories over and over again?

Anyway, I can't see this going anywhere like all the other movies.

On the negative side....

I could actually see the BBC handing the programme over to someone after Moffat leaves. I just sense they hate making it despite it's successes :P

[mycroft]

[biggytitbo]

Big FInish and the novels are for the die hard fans, we certainly don't need two mainstream parallel versions of Doctor Who because inevitably the TV show will suffer. A film written by Moffat with Matt Smith or his succesor might work, but I'd much rather have a higher budget and more tv stories, rather than a film with other people in it.

[Blumf]

What could a film do? Seeing as the TV show has blown the universe up several times over and every other possible overblown scenario.

[Talulah, really!]

Big FInish and the novels are for the die hard fans, we certainly don't need two mainstream parallel versions of Doctor Who because inevitably the TV show will suffer. A film written by Moffat with Matt Smith or his succesor might work, but I'd much rather have a higher budget and more tv stories, rather than a film with other people in it.

Ah, the hitherto little known reason The Gunfighters was crap, Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150AD was out at the local Odeon.

[mycroft]

Incidentally, has anyone else ever read The Nth Doctor by Jean-Marc Thingamibobs, detailing the various attempts to get a Who film off the ground throughout the 80s and 90s? The awfulness of those would take some beating. Some of the ideas are weird and pointless - in one Johnny Byrne script the Doctor picks up the Brigadier to join him on his adventure, and finds him playing golf with Basil and Sybil Fawlty, for some reason. Others are laughably, show-wreckingly shit, such as an early treatment for the eventual McGann film in which the Doctor, whose name is revealed to be 'Theo', is on a quest to find his missing father, Ulysses. On this quest he is helped by his dead grandfather Borusa (who inhabits the TARDIS' power crystals) and pursued by his evil half-brother the Master, who is President of Gallifrey and commanding the spider-like Daleks.

[biggytitbo]

Ah, the hitherto little known reason The Gunfighters was crap, Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150AD was out at the local Odeon.

I know the we've been here before but presumably it would be a bit different. We had a film industry back in 1965 and could churn out a Doctor Who cash in quickie no problem.


The big worry here would be that a Doctor Who film these days is going to be extremely pricey and would inevitably have a big Hollywood studio financing it. With that much at stake, isn't there a likelihood that they're going to want the TV show (which it would seem will be an entirely different version of the show) to go away for a bit so as to not dilute the new product?  What if the film is a massive success? They might even put the TV show on a permanent hiatus.


Even if a film is good, I'd rather have 14 episodes a year than 1 film every 2.

[papalaz4444244]

I'm actually wondering if the article is just a wind-up to coincide with Paul McGann's birthday.

[biggytitbo]

Maybe its an April fools from the future.


I look forward to the photoshop of Johnny Depp wearing Tom Bakers scarf in tomorrows Sun anyway.

[papalaz4444244]

I feel it would be more likely that the BBC would rest Dr Who for two years after the anniversary and that time would be used to make a movie directed by Spielberg or Jackson with a Moffat script.

Still not likely though.

[biggytitbo]

Nicholas Lyndhust please.

[Jemble Fred]

This seems win/win to me. Whether it sucks or rocks, it will be fascinating to see, and either way, there'll be little to no impact on the TV version, because it's a completely unconnected universe, like the Cushing ones. They can do their worst, and it ultimately only enriches the legend[nb]Could have been worse, I could have said 'brand'.[/nb].

[biggytitbo]

If there's $50 million of American cash riding on a Doctor Who movie, I can't see them wanting a rival TV show diluting 'their' property.


I really hope I'm wrong and the BBC have kept the two properties entirely seperate. But even then, why make a big film version of a massively successful on-running TV show and not use the actors and writers from that TV show?


It'd be like the film they made at the height of the X Files success on TV. It didn't star Brad Pitt and Julianne Moore and it wasn't written by and directed by Tony Scott was it? That wouldn't have made any sense.

[Jemble Fred]

So you would have said the same about the Cushing movies, that they should star Troughton instead, and have to be canon? Those films are harmless. Dull, but harmless. If it's non-canonical, then they may as well do their worst – and it certainly makes the whole process more interesting, just to see how the source material is adapted.

[biggytitbo]

So you would have said the same about the Cushing movies, that they should star Troughton instead, and have to be canon? Those films are harmless. Dull, but harmless. If it's non-canonical, then they may as well do their worst – and it certainly makes the whole process more interesting, just to see how the source material is adapted.

Those films were a couple of quickies made for £50 as a cash in on the Daleks.


This film, if it happens sounds like a different kettle of fish. The higher the stakes, the bigger the risk for the TV series as a film is always going to 'trump' a TV series. I have no problem with a film in itself, just the risk that it undermines the TV version or even leads to its cancellation.


I'd much rather have 14 episodes a year than a film every 2 even if they're good.

[mycroft]

This film, if it happens sounds like a different kettle of fish. The higher the stakes, the bigger the risk for the TV series as a film is always going to 'trump' a TV series.

Maybe 15 years ago, but these days film is the poor relative in terms of entertainment.

[BritishHobo]

Pointless. David Yates appears to be talking exclusively out of his own anus on this subject:

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch,"

Ignoring the fact that both of their own transformations carried on forty years of the show's history, why do they 'have' to do anything? Why is this needed, in any way? It isn't like the show is doing badly, in fact with Moffat in charge it seems to be bigger than ever in America. Seems utterly unnecessary.

Wonder how far along this is. Remaining hopeful that it's the usual bollocks that never happens, but these articles are always so vague about what's happened. Has any kind of deal been made, or is this fella just wandering around America trying to convince people that Doctor Who is in dire need of a reboot?

[biggytitbo]

Hopefully it's the usual bollocks. Unfortunetly this time there's a big name director whose come out and said he's working on it, which is different to the previous endless rumours.

[papalaz4444244]

Oh, I forgot to say....

The BBCs brand manager for Dr Who, Edward Russell, said it was just the usual unfounded rumours, on his Twitter feed.

He did add that making a film sometime in the future was not an impossibility.

Off Twitter for a few hours and the Doctor Who world explodes. There's always talk of a movie. Perhaps? Maybe one day. But not right now!

[biggytitbo]

Whereas the bbcamerica twitter feed say it is in development, and BBC news also report it is.


BBC, arse, elbow etc.

[papalaz4444244]

Whereas the bbcamerica twitter feed say it is in development, and BBC news also report it is.


BBC, arse, elbow etc.

Useless cunts.

[Blumf]

Would a film featuring some Who baddies without the Doc himself be acceptable? Cybermen vs Sontarans or... I don't know.. pitch something yourself

[biggytitbo]

The Slitheen versus Maureen Lipman trapped in a telly please.

[papalaz4444244]

Would a film featuring some Who baddies without the Doc himself be acceptable? Cybermen vs Sontarans or... I don't know.. pitch something yourself

See, I would be happy if they expanded the TV output that way but it seems that current thinking has it that if the Doctor is not on screen 90% of the time that people will switch off.

Something I don't believe as the Doctor-lite stories didn't seem to suffer that fate.

[BritishHobo]

Maybe we can finally get that Rose Tyler: Earth Defender spin-off everyone's been desperate to see.

[papalaz4444244]

Nicholas Lyndhust please.