Word And you know what I like the fact that Moffat doesn't have scripted spinny answers ready, Jesus have we sunk so low that we don't appreciate honesty anymore?
We want honesty! Hang on that wasn't scripted, put some effort in to it man! Stop lying and be honest! Fuck sake, can't even be bothered to rehearse his answers, he clearly must be some sort of idiot, liar, incompetent, or all of the above.
No official word except from the BBC: Which makes Moffat's "it's all a fantasy" line obviously inaccurate, and casts doubt on the already-implausible notion that he would be the one making final decisions about the crew of such a movie. And Yates has reiterated his involvement several times since the initial announcement, most recently I believe in late March: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/03...cluding-doctor-who-and-your-voice-in-my-head/. Look, Variety (which initially broke this story in a news article, despite Moffat's repeated claim that this is all because of off-the-cuff red carpet comments by Yates) doesn't report idle ramblings, and a major director like Yates doesn't go around randomly claiming involvement in projects that don't and can't exist. There's no guarantee that a movie will be made, or that Yates will be involved if it does, but it's plainly something that the BBC is pursuing, and Moffat is either massively misinformed or lying when he says otherwise. I like honesty; grandiose nonsense I can do without.
According to that, the "official" BBC line is that "there is no script, cast or production crew in place". Yates would be a part of the "production crew" (if he were telling the truth). Therefore if we accept your source, then Yates must be off his rocker. Personally I believe Moffat over you BBS folks.
No. The development process of a film often involves various personnel-- directors, screenwriters, actors-- being attached to the project. "Attached" is a filmmaking term of art; it doesn't just mean "interested" or "daydreaming" or whatever. Contracts are signed, people are paid, simply to create a concept for a possible film. Then, if a studio likes the concept, a greenlight happens, and furthers contracts for script, cast, and production crew for actual movie-making are signed. Yates' project is in development, at a point where he has been paid to work on it and is looking for a writer who will also be paid but well before a greenlight, so there's no factual inconsistency between his repeated interviews and the BBC statement. Moffat's increasingly histrionic interviews, on the other hand...
Er, no, he - if he's the one tapped by BBCWW to develop the project - would form the Production Crew once the project was greenlit. It's entirely possible (and highly likely) for both to be telling the truth as they see it, and having someone developing a possible movie is no guarantee that it will actually be greenlit - most stuff in development isn't. Moffat must know this, however, so his comments are... odd, and do him no good, cos they just make him look like someone in desperate denial for some reason.
So the BBC has essentially finally confirmed that Worldwide is in the process of developing a film but it doesn't have a script, cast, or crew yet and is a few years off? At least we've finally heard from them. The way this entire story broke is still weird to me, but whatever I don't really expect to hear actual news on this project for a long time anyway.
Different time with a different kind of society that I think was more receptive to this sort of thing. Dr. Who was still very much in it's early stages when these movies were released, with his back story only vaguely fleshed out. Plus, these movies were retreads of Hartnell era stories, so there was familiarity.. I think today's fanboy culture would make it VERY hard to accept a different Dr. Who product that what is on TV and it certainly would not fall into canon.. UNLESS.. It is an origin story with a young Hartnell era Doctor, borrowing the Tardis and setting out on his first adventure... I still think it would be a very hard sell to casual Who fans who really don't know the back story... I have a close friend who really only knows the Tennant/Smith era Doctor and doesn't know the history at all.
Clearly, Moffat is trying to set the public expectations for what a film would be like and to use that to influence the BBC administration. It's a sort of trial balloon (except not an anonymous leak) where if the response to his comments is positive, it'll give him more ammo with the brass. I also think the BBC's plans were to start official development of this film immediately after Moffat left his role as show runner. They just wanted to lay the ground work and Moffat probably wasn't even supposed to be aware of it, until Yates spilled the beans. Mr Awe
Would it really though? I mean, I don't honestly know one way or the other. But there are the novels, the radio and audio adventures (including one with an 'alternate' Doctor interacting with two Classid Doctors), the likes of the 'Dr Who Unbound' adventures, the web series with Richard E. Grant as The Doctor, the various versions of Shada arguments about season 6B, etc. Most of the above seem to appeal to the dedicated fanboy, as oppose to the casual fan, who just watches the tv show. It seems hard to reconcile the continuity of those various spin-offs, alternate Doctor Whos and untold stories, yet fanboys have gobbled them up. I note also that fans have in recent years contended with a Spider-man reboot coming less than a decade after the first movie, a reboot of James Bond, a modern day Sherlock Holmes series coming a few years after a looser action-adventure movie version (with an Americanised modern-day version to come), several different takes on the Hulk and the Punisher, a Star Trek reboot, a Superman reboot (as well as a tv prequel series), a Batman reboot, a James Bond reboot - have I missed any of them out?! As I say, I don't honestly know if a movie version of DW outside the canon would be accepted or not. But I think fans may just be more receptive to the idea of an alternate take on their heroes than we think.
Really all a theater Doctor Who needs is the basics, it'll just depend on whether or the movie will be set before or after the Time War. But if the movie has the Doctor, a companion and the TARDIS they can pretty much tell whatever story they want. Not that I really think the movie will ever get made.
The distinction though, between DrWho and the above rebooted properties, is that DrWho can tell any story it likes, can change its appearance and formula anyway it likes within it its own single dis-continuity. Any story that can't be told within the existing Dr Who continuity isn't a Dr Who story.
^ Fair point. But the counter to that is that if DW changes its own continuity, reboots its own premise, changes its appearance etc, then what's the big problem with there being an out-of-regular-continuity movie? I'm neither advocating nor dissing the idea of the movie; I don't think it's strictly necessary but nor do I think it's the ultimate evil. I'm happy enough to give it the benefit of the doubt unless or until it turns out to be a big pile of poo.
I would watch it, and probably enjoy it, but dropping the history would be like a 99 without the flake. Nice, but missing something.
Assuming you mean the story and not my spelling mistake (only just noticed it, oops!), I meant this Big Finish story: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=167539 But in fact, while it does feature an 'alternate Doctor' (played by the Gay Dad from The Inbetweeners), it involves The Sixth Doctor, not two Doctors. My memory!