Sony Hack reveals Doctor Who Movie plans.

[StCoop]

So basically Danny Cohen and BBCWW really wanted one and were in discussions with Sony about presumably co-producing it but Moffat was fighting against it. I guess this also means the David Yates directed film that was being talked about a few years ago (which he denied even existed) was also shot down by him.

Another interesting thing is that while Moffat mentioned recently talking to the BBC about plans for the next five years, they actually have an eight year plan for the TV series. (I just hope that doesn't mean eight years with him still in charge.)

https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/116206

 

[sttngfan1701d]

Considering the boatload of money that the 50th Anniversary made on so few screens in the US alone, a DW movie with a true worldwide release would totally make financial sense. You wouldn't even need to produce it on a huge budget, either. Just make it for the price of 3 or 4 episodes, and watch the cash roll in.

And considering the entire model of Doctor Who revolves around specials outside of the normal 12 or 13 episode series run, why wouldn't you do a movie? There literally is no negative that I can think of, except for those who are afraid of it losing its British-made identity or TV identity or whatever.

 

[StCoop]

There literally is no negative that I can think of, except for those who are afraid of it losing its British-made identity or TV identity or whatever.

I think Moffat's ego is so big that he can't cope with the idea of someone else having a go. (The fact that he's making 5-8 year plans for the future of the series is pretty worrying too.)

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The "8 year timeline for the brand" leads one to wonder if Moffat's successor has already been picked. Or, alternatively, that Moffat's statement in 2013 that he was closer to his departure from Who than his beginning was no longer operative by January 2014.

The emails confirm (at least in my reading) the general contours of the David Yates rumors, though not the specifics. By contours, I mean the implication in the email that Worldwide could make a Doctor Who movie without Moffat's input or approval, and Moffat didn't like that. It seems to me that Sony is being polite in not pressing forward with Worldwide and disturbing the Moffat waters.

They also paint an unflattering view of Moffat; the Yates reports first surfaced in November of 2011, and in January of 2014 he's still "very hot under the collar" that Worldwide has been talking with Hollywood people about a Doctor Who film. This leads us to the "implication" I note in the previous paragraph; if Moffat could stop production of a Doctor Who film dead, which is what he said he could when asked about it, Worldwide wouldn't have been talking with Sony two years later about a film. But because Worldwide was having those discussions as late as January 2014, they clearly could make a Doctor Who film without Moffat's input or oversight.

I have wondered recently if the future of Top Gear complicates the picture for Doctor Who. If Worldwide's Top Gear revenues fall in the post-Clarkson world, will they take more steps to monetize Who to make up the shortfall? Those in charge at Worldwide (and those who depend on Worldwide's money) could decide that being polite to Moffat vis a vis a Doctor Who movie is no longer in their interest and press forward, ignoring him. That wouldn't be ideal, but it could happen.

Considering the boatload of money that the 50th Anniversary made on so few screens in the US alone, a DW movie with a true worldwide release would totally make financial sense.

I know there were discussions within BBC Worldwide after "The Day of the Doctor" about how to repeat and build on that success. The theatrical debut for "Deep Breath" was an outgrowth of those discussions.

You wouldn't even need to produce it on a huge budget, either. Just make it for the price of 3 or 4 episodes, and watch the cash roll in.

A Doctor Who movie on a six million pound budget? Yeah, I don't think so...

I wouldn't expect (or want) a nine figure budget, but I could see a modest budget of around forty-five to fifty million.

There literally is no negative that I can think of, except for those who are afraid of it losing its British-made identity or TV identity or whatever.

That's a fair concern, especially when you have another studio involved because they're going to have their demands and their expectations on the film.

 

[StCoop]

The "8 year timeline for the brand" leads one to wonder if Moffat's successor has already been picked. Or, alternatively, that Moffat's statement in 2013 that he was closer to his departure from Who than his beginning was no longer operative by January 2014.

As much as I liked last series, the idea of eight (or I suppose seven at this point) more years of Moffat is truly frightening.

 

[Starkers]

So again we're back to this view of Moffat as some kind of all-powerful Bond villain who can do what he likes, rather than an employee of the BBC who, presumably, could be replaced at the sweep of a pen.

Plus we're seeing third hand reports of one side of a story really. There's reference to the show runners (emphasise on the plural there) feeling their view isn't being listened to. Who knows what BBCWW and Sony were proposing? If they're proposing something very reasonable then Moffat's being an arse, if, on the other hand, they're proposing some kind of major reinvention that would likely have most sane Whovians up in arms, then maybe Moffat's actually the white knight in this.

I also worry that Sony are looking for a franchise of Marvel/Disney/Star Wars kinda proportions, many studios seem to be doing this (see Ghostbusters) and I dunno, to quote Worf "I like my Who the way it is."

Allyn, I'd be worried if the film's budget was that sort of figure, those are exactly the kind of films that can very easily flop. A film with a small budget can succeed very easily, and a big blockbuster has the money to advertise the hell out of it, plus likely big names and momentum. A mid-range effects film on the other hand which probably doesn't have a tent pole star and is based upon a product that is popular and has name recognition, but maybe isn't as big as people think can easily sink.

Serenity and Dredd would be classic examples, they're good films, and at $40 $45 million respectively neither had a huge budget , yet neither made their money back. If they’re going to make a Who film they either need to stay small or go big, IMHO of course.

 

[Starkers]

The "8 year timeline for the brand" leads one to wonder if Moffat's successor has already been picked. Or, alternatively, that Moffat's statement in 2013 that he was closer to his departure from Who than his beginning was no longer operative by January 2014.

As much as I liked last series, the idea of eight (or I suppose seven at this point) more years of Moffat is truly frightening.

Even as a fan of Moffat I agree, RTD went at the right time, personally assuming someone decent is lined up to take over I'd like Series 9 to be Moffat's last, the show needs regularly shaking up, that's part of what keeps it fresh.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

So again we're back to this view of Moffat as some kind of all-powerful Bond villain who can do what he likes, rather than an employee of the BBC who, presumably, could be replaced at the sweep of a pen.

I don't see Moffat as Bond villain for, as you say, he can be sacked. What I read in those Wikileaks emails, though, suggests that the BBC would rather not ruffle his feathers (though they could), and they have legitimate reasons for keeping Moffat placated. I can imagine a conversation like this quite easily: "We may not like him, he may be a pain to work with, but his work on Who and Sherlock is a critical darling, so we put up with the bad to take the good."

Allyn, I'd be worried if the film's budget was that sort of figure, those are exactly the kind of films that can very easily flop. A film with a small budget can succeed very easily, and a big blockbuster has the money to advertise the hell out of it, plus likely big names and momentum. A mid-range effects film on the other hand which probably doesn't have a tent pole star and is based upon a product that is popular and has name recognition, but maybe isn't as big as people think can easily sink.

That's true, but there really are no certainties in Hollywood. Even Marvel will have a flop at some point.

I came up with a forty-five million figure from Star Trek, actually; Generations's budget was roughly twenty times a regular episode's budget, and that seemed like a good yardstick. Even the first X-Files movie had a budget about thirty times the per-episode budget of the series.

My fear with a small-ish budget -- say, twenty million or less -- that the Hollywood studio would run into resistance from the Hollywood press about their seriousness -- "Potential franchise, but they're releasing an indie-style movie shot on the cheap?" Production narrative controls a lot in Hollywood; once a film gets the stink of a bomb on it, it's difficult to wash off.

Even as a fan of Moffat I agree, RTD went at the right time, personally assuming someone decent is lined up to take over I'd like Series 9 to be Moffat's last, the show needs regularly shaking up, that's part of what keeps it fresh.

I admit, I would like to see Moffat sent packing from the Who production offices with Oliver Cromwell's speech dismissing the Rump Parliament:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Not likely to ever happen, but I can dream.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Who knows what BBCWW and Sony were proposing?

I can think of only one story Hollywood execs would be interested in doing - a Secret Origin story that reveals the REAL reason One (who presumably would be played by David Bradley if he's still around by then) grabbed Susan and took off from Gallifrey. Some element of that origin (the Hand of Omega?) would then come back to haunt the present Doctor/Companion, whoever they are. If Gallifrey and the Time Lords are still out of commission by then, the film's end would see them restored. Throw in roles for the Daleks, Cybermen and maybe even a Weeping Angel cameo, tease a return of/reunion with Susan (regenerated) at the end, there's your big screen blockbuster.

Oh, and throw in a reimagined tin dog.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The alternate universe/non-canon Doctor Who film existing simultaneously with the TV show always struck me as a bad idea. Glad Moffat fought against it.

 

[starsuperion]

So again we're back to this view of Moffat as some kind of all-powerful Bond villain who can do what he likes, rather than an employee of the BBC who, presumably, could be replaced at the sweep of a pen.

Plus we're seeing third hand reports of one side of a story really. There's reference to the show runners (emphasise on the plural there) feeling their view isn't being listened to. Who knows what BBCWW and Sony were proposing? If they're proposing something very reasonable then Moffat's being an arse, if, on the other hand, they're proposing some kind of major reinvention that would likely have most sane Whovians up in arms, then maybe Moffat's actually the white knight in this.

I also worry that Sony are looking for a franchise of Marvel/Disney/Star Wars kinda proportions, many studios seem to be doing this (see Ghostbusters) and I dunno, to quote Worf "I like my Who the way it is."

Allyn, I'd be worried if the film's budget was that sort of figure, those are exactly the kind of films that can very easily flop. A film with a small budget can succeed very easily, and a big blockbuster has the money to advertise the hell out of it, plus likely big names and momentum. A mid-range effects film on the other hand which probably doesn't have a tent pole star and is based upon a product that is popular and has name recognition, but maybe isn't as big as people think can easily sink.

Serenity and Dredd would be classic examples, they're good films, and at $40 $45 million respectively neither had a huge budget , yet neither made their money back. If they’re going to make a Who film they either need to stay small or go big, IMHO of course.

I actually agree with you on this. Moffatt may be alot of things but a tyrant no..I think he has done allot for the show and new who

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I can think of only one story Hollywood execs would be interested in doing - a Secret Origin story that reveals the REAL reason One (who presumably would be played by David Bradley if he's still around by then) grabbed Susan and took off from Gallifrey.

There is an argument to be made that "The Doctor Begins" is exactly the sort of thing Hollywood would want. Not because they want (or prefer) "Secret Origin" stories, but because that's a story that the television series hasn't told, so the story itself becomes a point of differentiation from the television series and a reason to go to the theater to see it.

In light of the leaked email, I begin to wonder if "Listen" was Moffat's shot across BBC Worldwide's bow -- "If you even think about a 'secret origin' movie, I'll beat you to it." That may be too Machiavellian for even Moffat, though.

The questions that Worldwide needs to answer are these -- What can a movie do that the television series cannot? How does this build the brand? And, more importantly, how does this complement the television series?

The television series can do anything; a movie is going to be, pretty much, one type of story. (Which is why some of the 90s movie scripts, like Denny Martin Flinn's, attempted to shove all of the Doctor Who genres in, shifting from pseudohistorical to space opera every ten minutes or so.) That's probably the biggest argument against the film, and why the "Secret Origin" story would be compelling.

Casting David Bradley, however, would be a mistake. So too would be soup of Daleks, Cybermen, Weeping Angels, Time Lords, and Susan be. If the production team starts from the premise that they need to make a film for Doctor Who fans, then they've already failed. The film needs to be as accessible to non-Whovians as possible. Think "Rose" or "The Eleventh Hour," which were designed as "jumping on" points. Don't think the McGann film with its "kisses to the past."

In other words, the BBC needs a reason, beyond a naked cash grab from fandom, for a Doctor Who film. We've seen that the Marvel Universe can coexist on television and in film sharing a universe, but that's because each product is different. Doctor Who is a wizard in a magic box; the lines may change, the options may be more high-tech, but functionally under the hood it's the same car. I'm not at all opposed to a film; indeed, I'd welcome a non-Moffat film if Moffat were still producing the series because I'd like to hear a different "voice." But there are certainly questions that need to be answered first. From his interviews at the time, it sounded to me like David Yates understood those questions and had pondered them hard. Hopefully, the next person attached to a Doctor Who film understands them, too.

 

[Lonemagpie]

TBH, I'd like to see them remake a lost story - there'd be no problem trying to fit all the genres in that way. Just give me a nice big-budget Evil Of The Daleks, and all will be fine. (Think about it- lost story, most popular and audience-grabbing villains, different times to show off the time travel element, different planets to show off the space travel element...)

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

Here's a question: Why couldn't Moffat allow for a movie to be made with a past Doctor? Tenth, Eleventh or even the Eighth, who proved lucrative enough after Night of the Doctor - speaking of which, I'm thinking that its Moffat who also drowned any chance for possible re-appearances by McGann following the enormously positive reaction to the mini-episode.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Here's a question: Why couldn't Moffat allow for a movie to be made with a past Doctor? Tenth, Eleventh or even the Eighth, who proved lucrative enough after Night of the Doctor

He could. Gaps were certainly built into the eleventh Doctor's life for possible future use.

I don't know that I'd call the eighth Doctor "lucrative," though. No disrespect to McGann or the character -- I like them both very much -- but he wouldn't be the draw in an eighth Doctor movie. The words "Doctor Who" in the title would be. And I think that's true of Tennant and Smith as well.

speaking of which, I'm thinking that its Moffat who also drowned any chance for possible re-appearances by McGann following the enormously positive reaction to the mini-episode.

I've heard the rumor, yes, that the BBC was keen to capitalize on the excitement surrounding "Night of the Doctor" and meetings were had, but Moffat was not keen on the idea. I don't know if it's true or not, but I can certainly see a good reason for not doing more with McGann on television -- it would dilute the brand. Comic books and Big Finish are one thing -- they're niche products for a niche and dedicated audience -- so they aren't diluting the brand by putting another Doctor forward the way a McGann special or mini-series would.

And that, honestly, is another argument against a movie. It's unlikely, despite Moffat's protestations to the contrary, that the film would be written by the television series' production team and star their Doctor du jour. Which Doctor, then, is the brand? The television Doctor or the film Doctor? Which is the Doctor that shoppers are going to see on products and in the stores? Which logo goes on the products? Looking at what Paramount did and didn't do with the Star Trek brand over the last six years in relation to the film shows the problems of marketing something new when you're still marketing the old.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The alternate universe/non-canon Doctor Who film existing simultaneously with the TV show always struck me as a bad idea. Glad Moffat fought against it.

The adventures of Doctor Who, especially of late, seem to be working to tell stories that work best with the intimacy and scale of the small screen. I can't really picture scaling up Capaldi adventures working as well as an epic big-budget picture from scratch that built on but wasn't beholden to fit completely within canon.

 

[K'Toska]

As long as it's better than the 1996 movie. *shudders*

I would prefer them to use the current Doctor. I'm not a huge fan of Capaldi but I do like him. I didn't like how they chose a completely new guy for the last movie. That has nothing to do with McGann's acting abilities or anything - there's nothing wrong with him, and it would've actually been nice to see him on the television shows. Still, I'd prefer that they stuck with the current Doctor as the show is still on the air, unlike last time when it'd been dead for a bit.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

The 1996 movie was a tv movie.

When I think about Doctor Who movies, the movies with Peter Cushing come to mind. I have read that they weren't particularly good.

 

[K'Toska]

Yes, but a movie nonetheless. My main issue with the 1996 movie wasn't even the budget - it was the plot. Haven't seen the Peter Cushing movies myself as I tend to avoid anything that isn't canon. I wouldn't mind Moffat being involved in a movie but I wouldn't want him writing it. I do love many of his episodes but I don't think his kind of storytelling would work out well on the big screen.

 

[The Wormhole]

I've heard the rumor, yes, that the BBC was keen to capitalize on the excitement surrounding "Night of the Doctor" and meetings were had, but Moffat was not keen on the idea.

Wasn't there an interview with Moffat where he indicated due to the popularity of Night of the Doctor they were going to start taking things like the webisodes more seriously? Although, since then there have been no webisodes at all.

As long as it's better than the 1996 movie. *shudders*

I would prefer them to use the current Doctor. I'm not a huge fan of Capaldi but I do like him. I didn't like how they chose a completely new guy for the last movie. That has nothing to do with McGann's acting abilities or anything - there's nothing wrong with him, and it would've actually been nice to see him on the television shows. Still, I'd prefer that they stuck with the current Doctor as the show is still on the air, unlike last time when it'd been dead for a bit.

The 96 telemovie was at the time intended to launch a new series starring Paul McGann. Various factors, such as the low ratings it got in the US ultimately led to that not happening.