• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sony Hack reveals Doctor Who Movie plans.

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.

Ah, that makes more sense. I knew they created it to get people interested in the show, but I had no idea they intended to have McGann star in the series. It may have fared better if they didn't try so hard to impress Americans. In my experience, American fans of Doctor Who love it for what it is (at least in its current incarnation, though I know many who loved classic Who as well).
 
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.

Ah, that makes more sense. I knew they created it to get people interested in the show, but I had no idea they intended to have McGann star in the series. It may have fared better if they didn't try so hard to impress Americans. In my experience, American fans of Doctor Who love it for what it is (at least in its current incarnation, though I know many who loved classic Who as well).

The whole movie has what I consider to be the very specific presentation of a 90s American syndicated adventure show which plays very odd if you know of Doctor Who from other sources.

Examples:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=190825
 
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.

1965
dr_who_and_the_daleks.jpg

1966
daleks_invasion_earth.jpg

Both films are alternate universe/non-canon and existed simultaneously with the TV show.
51a885adafa96f3e8b000e1d.gif
 
^ But those were more for overseas audiences, weren't they? To introduce Doctor Who internationally and maybe sell the series to other markets? (Or, more to the point, to sell the Daleks and maybe get a franchise of their own going.)
 
^ But those were more for overseas audiences, weren't they? To introduce Doctor Who internationally and maybe sell the series to other markets?

No. Unlike the family audience of the TV series, they were made pretty much exclsively for British children to watch during their school holidays.
 
There seem to be three groups that are pitching a fit over the possibility of another big screen movie .

1. Steven Moffat A petty little man child who doesn't want anyone else to play with the toys he's been lent.

2. Xenophobes They don't want non-Brits near Doctor Who. Especially if they're American.

3. Those who can't handle multiple continuities Every single thing must be slotted into a single continuity. Anything that doesn't fit must have some sort of explanation, be it somewhat sane or batshit crazy, to make it fit. THERE CANNOT BE OR EVER SHALL BE MORE THAN ONE CONTINUITY!11!! EVAH!!1111!!!


Everyone else is either interested, indifferent, dosen't see the point of, or just don't care about it. And just like the Cushing films it won't tarnish their enjoyment of the TV show.



 
I don't know..I mean does the franchise really need another movie? I'm not sure that a movie would be good to do, unless of course they pulled out all the stops, and this time dealt with another enemy. .maybe some daleks in it would be cool..but how about a revisit of Omega, and this time with all the new docs..that's the only way it would be worth watching..IMHO
 
^ But those were more for overseas audiences, weren't they? To introduce Doctor Who internationally and maybe sell the series to other markets? (Or, more to the point, to sell the Daleks and maybe get a franchise of their own going.)
They were made to make money for AARU, who spotted a trend when it was going well in the UK, and dropped it as soon as it ended. Simple as that! (though if they had taken off in the States, no-one would have been grumbling...)
 
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. :)

Well if his replacement is the Oliver Cromwell of showrunners that dream may become a nightmare :)

That's a fair point about how Hollywood would perceive a lower budget film, but despite Who's increasing popularity across the pond, would there still be a perception of "Dr What?" from some quarters?
 
That's a fair point about how Hollywood would perceive a lower budget film, but despite Who's increasing popularity across the pond, would there still be a perception of "Dr What?" from some quarters?

Absolutely. Until a few months before Guardians of the Galaxy hit, there was still a large "Guardians of what?" reaction to it among the geek population. That was a movie from a studio with an established track record among the fan crowd, and it was still a risk. Doctor Who does have a familiar name among the fan crowd, but I think there would still be a certain amount of "Doctor What?" from those outside of that crowd.
 
Doctor Who does have a familiar name among the fan crowd, but I think there would still be a certain amount of "Doctor What?" from those outside of that crowd.

And yet a couple of weeks ago 'The Big Bang Theory' did an episode which mostly revolved around which character would get to keep a life-size TARDIS Police Box in their home.

At this point I'd put the series in the US in the same category as shows like 'Mad Men'. Not many people watch but lots of people are aware of it.
 
Some quick thoughts.

1) Moffat is just a BBC employee who writes for a BBC owned series. He doesn't own the series or have control over how and who makes it. If the BBC wants to license it out to make a movie, they can do that.

2) I like Moffat and he has contributed a tremendous amount to the DW TV series. However, I hope he's not around for even another 5 years. Actually, I'm hoping that series 9 is his last. I think it's time for a change.

3) Whether Moffat's protests and attempts to stop a movie is a good thing or not, we just don't know. We don't know what the movie would be like. And, even if we did, I'm sure fandom would be split. Some are probably opposed to a movie. Some would probably accept a movie as long as it met their personal requirements whatever they might be (e.g., using the current cast, past Doctor, or what not). And, some fans would probaby be willing to try any movie and judging it on its own merits (imagine that).

4) Personally, I say why not. I'm not dying for a movie, but if one were to come out, shoot I'd watch it and judge it based on how good it is. If it's bad, I'll just ignore it. If it's good, the details about who's in it and whether it's connected to the TV series won't matter.

I do have some preferences. I think it would be cool to showcase the original Doctor and why he left Gallifrey. That would be a cool story. If not that, otherwise feature the current or past Doctor. Actually, featuring a past Doctor could even be a better use of the movie than the current Doctor because we're guaranted 13 or so episodes with the current Doctor.

But, if the movied uses a totally new Doctor and is loosely based on the TV series, I'd still give it a try just to see what it was like and how good it is.

Mr Awe
 
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.

I don't see a problem with that (minus the tin dog-just bring back K9.) In fact, it sounds just like the Abrams Star Trek movies, and might bring in new fans. Why does the movie version have to be like the TV show, anyway?
 
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.

Well, the "brand" is not Capaldi, or Smith, or Tennant, etc. The brand is the Doctor in all of his forms. Including previous Doctors doesn't dilute anything. If anything, it contributes.

The main issue is not "the brand", it's profitability. That could drive a movie to either go to the origins, but not necessarily. You don't need to know anything at all to watch this because this kicks the whole adventure off.

Mr Awe
 
it sounds just like the Abrams Star Trek movies, and might bring in new fans.
A fractured timeline would be an easy way to make a movieverse that doesn't have to be limited by the TV show. Similar to the new ST movies but without the baggage.
 
Except the new Trek films aren't running alongside a TV show still set in the original timeline.

I think someone made a good point up-thread, what exactly does a film bring to the table that the TV show can’t aside from a bigger budget for effects, meaning more space ships, more Daleks…but story wise can it be any better? You could argue it might be worse. I mean let’s be honest, there are plenty examples of two parters since 2005 where the story felt stretched, an awful lot of classic era stories that didn’t really have the meat for 4-10 episodes either. I can’t see how a film could deal with subjects the show can’t (in fact given the need to appeal to a mass international market the chances are they’d have to play it safe content wise).

The Trek films are (mostly) great, but in part that’s down to fact that it was the only way to see the original and next gen crews since they were no longer on the TV, and let’s be honest very few of the films feel exactly like the show did. If they really feel there’s a story they can only tell on the big screen then I say go for it, but if it’s just a case of milking the cash cow and showing a lot more explosions and Dalek and Cybermen fleets battling like it’s a Star Wars film I'd rather they didn't.

But of course I’ll go and see it! :D
 
^ Me too! :)

Actually, thinking about it more, the biggest appeal of a DW movie would be one that featured a past Doctor, probably Tennant or Smith. Think about it. We've guaranteed new, free episodes with the current Doctor, so no need for a film there.

But, what about a story centered on a past Doctor? An episode won't be centered around a past Doctor. So, if the only way to see say a new Tennant story is at the theater, that's quite a draw.

Of course, that may depend too heavily on the TV fanbase to be profitable. I'm not sure about that angle. But, as a fan, that scenario would probably be the most exciting. A new Tennant or Smith story.

Although, I'm sure I'd see it regardless!

Mr Awe
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top