It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A doctor who film - yes, sorry, really(32 posts)(32 posts)
(32 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 14, 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15730665

Please no.
Posted November 14, 2011
It's not a format suited to a movie the Paul McGann TV Movie proved that especially when it's made by people who don't give a toss about the history. Yeah McGann was good and the soundtrack was IMO really good but... Eric Roberts camping it up like a trooper, bad special effects and a totally wooden cast put together in a bollocks story. Half-Human my arse. The fact the Harry Potter director is attached is not doing much to raise my hopes.

I have this horrible image in my head of Justin Timberlake playing the Doctor, Dwayne Johnson as Jamie McCrimmon complete with Kilt and Jessica Alba as Zoe.
Post edited November 14, 2011 by Delixe
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
Delixe: It's not a format suited to a movie the Paul McGann TV Movie proved that especially when it's made by people who don't give a toss about the history. Yeah McGann was good and the soundtrack was IMO really good but... Eric Roberts camping it up like a trooper, bad special effects and a totally wooden cast put together in a bollocks story. Half-Human my arse. The fact the Harry Potter director is attached is not doing much to raise my hopes.

I have this horrible image in my head of Justin Timberlake playing the Doctor, Dwayne Johnson as Jamie McCrimmon complete with Kilt and Jessica Alba as Zoe.
Thought you may have a view on this one. There was an article on El Reg about the path the series was taking. Surprised me simply because it was so direct.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/14/dr_who_emotional_rescue/
Posted November 14, 2011
Argh!

I hope they make it a reboot in a separate continuity so we can ignore it and forget about it, a bit like the Peter Cushing films.
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
wpegg: Thought you may have a view on this one. There was an article on El Reg about the path the series was taking. Surprised me simply because it was so direct.
Also completely correct. Rusty started well but was on some maniacal ego trip that was forcing his series finale's to become more and more batshit insane. It's very telling that most of the best episodes from series 1-4 were not written by Russel T Davies. As for Moffat's era, he has inherited a massive amount of baggage from dear old Rusty and I do believe he's done well but what the series really needs more than anything is a complete continuity reboot. Canon is not a word that can be used with Doctor Who because in truth the canon has been rewritten all the time. As much as Rusty get's the blame for mucking around with Who, John Nathan Turner did just as much during the 80's if not worse.

What Doctor Who really, really doesn't need is a Movie series which is unconnected to the TV series being shown at the same time. That's just going to make things even worse and more confusing for fans. Seriously I thought the whole point of spinning off Torchwood was so they could make these bigger budget US-based productions without messing with the core show. Noe you are going to have Doctor Who series 7, Torchwood series 5 and a Doctor Who movie franchise.
avatar
SirPrimalform: I hope they make it a reboot in a separate continuity so we can ignore it and forget about it, a bit like the Peter Cushing films.
That's exactly what it will be. Neither Russel T Davies or Steven Moffat are involved in the Movies. Who they get to write is anyone's guess. I would like Paul Cornell or Andrew Cartmel but likely it will be Chris Chibnall knowing our luck.
Post edited November 14, 2011 by Delixe
Posted November 14, 2011
I wouldn't really worry too much. He's gone out of continuity for movies before. Sucky? Yeah, a bit, but this shouldn't be too bad, really.
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
Delixe: As for Moffat's era, he has inherited a massive amount of baggage from dear old Rusty
Kind of off topic here, but am I the only one who saw the end of Victory of the Daleks as being a really obvious "Fuck off Russelty Daleks"? I know the episode was written by Mark Gatiss, but I'm guessing it was on Moffat's instruction.
Posted November 14, 2011
Not really enough information to be optimistic or specifically pessimistic, just a general pessimism that 'film of tv show = shit'
Posted November 14, 2011
Augh.

I take some comfort in this:

A BBC spokesman said: "[...] The project is unlikely to reach cinemas for several years and as yet there is no script, cast or production crew in place."
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
Aliasalpha: Not really enough information to be optimistic or specifically pessimistic, just a general pessimism that 'film of tv show = shit'
+1

Although for those saying that Dr. Who does not make a good film - FOR SHAME!
Clearly you whipper snappers are too young to recall the glory days - the golden area when London was bombed and blasted as the Darleks Invaded the Earth!



Then again the new Who dosn't cut it much against the old - that Trenant chap ok he made it work; but the others are, eh they are not the solid actors nor characters that the originals were.
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
Delixe: It's not a format suited to a movie the Paul McGann TV Movie proved that especially when it's made by people who don't give a toss about the history. Yeah McGann was good and the soundtrack was IMO really good but... Eric Roberts camping it up like a trooper, bad special effects and a totally wooden cast put together in a bollocks story. Half-Human my arse. The fact the Harry Potter director is attached is not doing much to raise my hopes.

I have this horrible image in my head of Justin Timberlake playing the Doctor, Dwayne Johnson as Jamie McCrimmon complete with Kilt and Jessica Alba as Zoe.
\
But, aren't dark wizards what Dr. Who is really all about?
Posted November 14, 2011
avatar
overread: Although for those saying that Dr. Who does not make a good film - FOR SHAME!
Clearly you whipper snappers are too young to recall the glory days - the golden area when London was bombed and blasted as the Darleks Invaded the Earth!
The Peter Cushing films are forgiveable because they're not actually Doctor Who films. They were about a human called Dr Who (please, Mr Who was my father), who invents a time machine because he's that clever.
Post edited November 14, 2011 by SirPrimalform
Posted November 14, 2011
I actually really like Matt Smith as the Doctor. However...

I really hate Moffat as the main producer (or whatever his title actually is). He was a decent writer, and the few episodes he wrote for the Davies era were some of the better ones, but in terms of actual continuity and character development, I find him to be subpar. The two most recent seasons have been a big letdown for me. I liked the #3-5 Doctors, thought Eccleston was okay, loved Tennant (but not as much as Baker).

I think the issue is that Moffat has a tendency to write himself into corners, or get started developing a story without ANY IDEA where he plans for it to go. In "Blink," he couldn't even manage to come up with a sensible weakness for the Weeping Angels. That's right. He couldn't even manage to write a weakness for HIS OWN MONSTER. The director of that episode had to bail him out. And then there's River Song...

Basically, I'd like Moffat a lot more if he had somebody above him with some oversight. Him running the show is, to me at least, the Dilbert Principle in action. The only actual positive I can think of is that he's made the Daleks a bit scarier than they were under Davies. Except for one 9th Doctor episode "Dalek," the Davies variety were pretty pathetic.

So it's actually possible, however unlikely, that the movie could be an improvement. The 1996 TV movie was bad mostly because they were trying to target American audiences who'd never heard of the Doctor before. So they changed lots of stuff to make it more "accessible." Now that Americans actually know who/what he is, hopefully they'll be more faithful to the show's history.
Post edited November 14, 2011 by bevinator
Posted November 15, 2011
I'm probably one of the only people out there who are fans of Eleven.

But seriously, who the hell thought this would be a good idea? Would this make any money at all for the BBC? (Because let's face it, that would be the only rationale that I could think of.)

So let's say that the BBC does go with a separate movie continuity for Doctor Who. What's really going to happen?

a) The character/content/relationships will get dumbed down. I don't think anyone will disagree with this. By its very nature, it almost has to be to make the movie more accessible (and thus, more profitable).

b) Inappropriate actors will be cast. To get any compelling audience, the producers and the BBC will probably cast top-tier actors who would be completely inappropriate for Doctor Who's characters; Delixe's nightmare of Justin Timberlake wouldn't be that far off.

c) It's going to alienate audiences anyway. As much as we'd all love to think otherwise, Doctor Who simply hasn't had the same kind of audience penetration in the same way that Star Trek and Star Wars have enjoyed. If they try to keep elements of what made Doctor Who Doctor Who in the movie, people will still find it puzzling and confusing. Time Lords? Daleks? TARDIS's? Whaaa? This is the same problem that I think is going to hamper the new BSG movie. The complexity of the show's narrative and the relationships were what gave it depth and made it appealing. Take all of that away and you won't have much left.

d) It's definitely going to alienate the fans. When you make compromises to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator (but still try to keep elements which made the original TV show appealing and distinctive) then what seems to almost always happen is that too many compromises will be made and the core fans will be lost.

This is going to be the FOX 1996 TV movie all over again, only that it's going to fare even worse. At least there were some aspects to the TV movie which were redeeming, but I can't help but take a cynic's approach and predict that this is just going to turn into a bland, generic sci-fi/action-adventure movie with the obligatory love interest and tolken British bad guy that will end up turning more people off of Doctor Who.
Posted November 15, 2011
There have been a couple Dr Who movies in the past Dr who Dalek Invasion on Earth is one i remember. Although entertaining it just did no have the same feel as the series.

I just hope they dont try and make it into something like the star trek reboot all fancy effects which blows your mind but then the story and everything else kind of screws the fans by doing some daft things such as in star trek rewriting the time line.

Since there is no script or anything done the film may not happen but if it will it could split the fan base.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A doctor who film - yes, sorry, really(32 posts)(32 posts)
(32 posts)