David (Harry Potter) Yates to direct Doctor Who The Movie!

[Starkers]

No, he needs to be kept available to take over from Daniel Craig as the next Bond

What's the big deal? He'll have a time machine. He can do both!

Well, we know Bond's a Time Lord anyway... We've just never seen a regeneration story with him.

Just as well, fandom would explode it they'd actually seen Connery regenerate into Lazenby and then back into Connery before quickly tripping over a brick and turning into Rog...

Michael Fassbender for the Doctor,

No, he needs to be kept available to take over from Daniel Craig as the next Bond

Fingers crossed, though I hope Craig is around for a while yet.

Can someone repeat what Moffat actually tweeted?

“Announcing my personal moonshot, starting from scratch. No money, no plan, no help from NASA. But I know where the moon is – I’ve seen it.”

Basically dismissing the woman without who he wouldn't have a TV series to be in charge of and one of the biggest Directors in the world (and even if you don't like HP he also made stuff like the original "State Of Play") as being incapable of making a Doctor Who film. Which is nonsense.

Even funnier was Tom Spilsbury, or Smee as I like to call him, insisting at first that it was nothing more than "old rumours" despite the front page story in Variety with direct quotes from Yates.

If it does get made and Smee is still running DWM at the time it'll be facinating to see if they try and pretend that it doesn't exist in much they same way they pretend Series 5 was actually Series 1 and Series 6, Series 2...

I'm know I'm biased but I'm delighted that Moffat's been reminded that Doctor Who didn't start with him and it won't end with him either.

I know I'm not biased enough but it strikes me that the person who feels Who starts and ends with him his Yates, he is the one after all who is going to ignore the show's entire history and start from scratch.

Bit petulant from Moffat? Maybe, but he is a human being after all (I know shocking isn't it) and I wonder what my reaction would be if my employers advised they were hiring someone to set up a department like mine in every way, only one with a bigger scope and a bigger budget abd they were going to ignore any work me or my many predeccesors had done before, oh and by the way can I just carry on doing my job at the same time?

 

[Mr Awe]

^What's Moffat been saying?

I'm torn to be honest, I think your point has some validity, but from the other angle this is the BBC basically telling Moffat and co that their version of Who isn't good enough.

See, I don't take it that way at all. They probably just see it as a way to make more money AND possibly gain new viewers for the TV show if people like the movie.

I wouldn't take it as a slight against Moffat, it's just a money thing.

Mr Awe

 

[RoJoHen]

If anything, I think it's probably a sign of Who's popularity growing, especially since entering the American market. The show has gotten popular, and they want to expand. I honestly wonder if this could turn into a series of Doctor Who movies.

 

[Starkers]

^What's Moffat been saying?

I'm torn to be honest, I think your point has some validity, but from the other angle this is the BBC basically telling Moffat and co that their version of Who isn't good enough.

See, I don't take it that way at all. They probably just see it as a way to make more money AND possibly gain new viewers for the TV show if people like the movie.

I wouldn't take it as a slight against Moffat, it's just a money thing.

Mr Awe

Frankly I think most of us, if we were Moffat would take it as a slight. This is assuming Moffat wasn't made aware of any of this. As it plays it seems to have come out of the blue but maybe he's been aware for ages and the BBC have kept him informed at every step, in which case I have less forgiveness for his petulance.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^What's Moffat been saying?

I'm torn to be honest, I think your point has some validity, but from the other angle this is the BBC basically telling Moffat and co that their version of Who isn't good enough.

See, I don't take it that way at all. They probably just see it as a way to make more money AND possibly gain new viewers for the TV show if people like the movie.

I wouldn't take it as a slight against Moffat, it's just a money thing.

Mr Awe

Frankly I think most of us, if we were Moffat would take it as a slight.

I wouldn't I'm not that obsessed with a TV show.

Am I the only one who thinks that if they do this they should be as different from the show as they want to just becuase I don't want to see an exact clone of the show with different actors. Go nuts if you want spider tank Daleks or cyborg zombie Cybermen ie their non metal parts are showing go for it.

 

[StCoop]

Frankly I think most of us, if we were Moffat would take it as a slight.

Thing is he's supposed to be a professional. Unless he's started believing his own hype then he should understand that the BBC's interest in their property goes beyond his current stewardship of the television series.

While RTD might have had the occasional moan and complaint in interviews he wisely didn't start up a Twitter account where he could complain all the time backed up by a Greek Chorus of Spilsbury, Roberts etc.

 

[RoJoHen]

Am I the only one who thinks that if they do this they should be as different from the show as they want to just becuase I don't want to see an exact clone of the show with different actors. Go nuts if you want spider tank Daleks or cyborg zombie Cybermen ie their non metal parts are showing go for it.

I'd really be happy to see a Dalek whose primary tool isn't a plunger.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I wouldn't I'm not that obsessed with a TV show.

It's not about being obsessed with a TV show though. Its about a perceived slight against the work you've done.

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that its successful they are going to bring someone new in and he's going to ignore your work entirely. But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going whilst the new guy does his thing. Would you be as sanguine about it?

In the same situation as Moffat and co. i cant imagine anyone who wouldn't feel put out by this development.

His tweet doesnt strike me as that bad at all. He's just expressed his doubts that anything will come of the revelation that Yates is making a movie version of Doctor Who. He could have been far, far more petulant and personal about it, but hasn't.

But like RTD before him, it seems like some elements of the Doctor Who fanbase will see the worst in everything he says and does. I hope Yates knows what he's taken on by having a shot at Doctor Who, because he'll likely suffer the same.

 

[Sindatur]

<Scratches head> Why would anyone see this as a slap in the face to Moffat?

We've got Audios (That have been produced/distributed by different entitities) in various flavors Unbound, Companions Series like Gallifrey and Jago and Lightfoot, past Doctors, current Doctors, etc, etc. Anyone think these different segments of Audios are sleighted by another segment?

We've got Novels of different flavors, Past and Present Doctors, Alternate realities, Adult targeted, Novelizations, etc.

We've had games and Action Figures

We have the TV Series

None of these Producers has any input into the other Mediums, and none of them is slapped by any of the others.

Why should a Doctor Who Theatrical movie be any different? A Theatrical Film Series would be at most 1, 2 hour story every 2 years (more likely every 3 years). That's way different then 14 hour long episodes every year, not to mention the difference between "Big Screen" and "Little Screen" requirements to hold an audience's attention and enjoyment.

Moffat's got Sherlock and Dr. Who, why would he need another project, when he already mentions how overwhelming helming just the two shows simultaneously can be.

Why is it OK with everyone to have all these other Mediums for Doctor Who, but, all of a sudden somehow a Theatrical movie is a slap in the face to the Current Showrunner and some kind of "Middle Finger to the audience"?

 

[Silent_Bob]

<Scratches head> Why would anyone see this as a slap in the face to Moffat?

None of these Producers has any input into the other Mediums, and none of them is slapped by any of the others.

Why should a Doctor Who Theatrical movie be any different? A Theatrical Film Series would be at most 1, 2 hour story every 2 years (more likely every 3 years). That's way different then 14 hour long episodes every year, not to mention the difference between "Big Screen" and "Little Screen" requirements to hold an audience's attention and enjoyment.

Moffat's got Sherlock and Dr. Who, why would he need another project, when he already mentions how overwhelming helming just the two shows simultaneously can be.

Why is it OK with everyone to have all these other Mediums for Doctor Who, but, all of a sudden somehow a Theatrical movie is a slap in the face to the Current Showrunner and some kind of "Middle Finger to the audience"?

I haven't seen anyone in the thread call it a slap in the face for Moffat nor a middle finger to the audience.

Just people who can see why Moffat might feel slighted by this development and can excuse why he might make a statement on Twitter that's not the most supportive thing ever said.

In fact im surprised by how relatively positive people on this board have taken this announcement. There has certainly been no wailing or gnashing of teeth.

 

[Mr Awe]

^What's Moffat been saying?

I'm torn to be honest, I think your point has some validity, but from the other angle this is the BBC basically telling Moffat and co that their version of Who isn't good enough.

See, I don't take it that way at all. They probably just see it as a way to make more money AND possibly gain new viewers for the TV show if people like the movie.

I wouldn't take it as a slight against Moffat, it's just a money thing.

Mr Awe

Frankly I think most of us, if we were Moffat would take it as a slight. This is assuming Moffat wasn't made aware of any of this. As it plays it seems to have come out of the blue but maybe he's been aware for ages and the BBC have kept him informed at every step, in which case I have less forgiveness for his petulance.

It's not that Yates would be doing the same job. It's a different job. That's all. So, if someone told me at work that they're bringing in someone to work on something related to what I'm doing yet an entirely different project that I wouldn't have time for anyway, no problem! Especially if there were some spillover benefits. And, as far as I know, Moffat has no experience producing a huge budget film in the US. So, Yates is actually more qualified for that specific job.

Really, Moffat can't be doing both the TV series and the movie!

Mr Awe

 

[Hartzilla2007]

<Scratches head> Why would anyone see this as a slap in the face to Moffat?

None of these Producers has any input into the other Mediums, and none of them is slapped by any of the others.

Why should a Doctor Who Theatrical movie be any different? A Theatrical Film Series would be at most 1, 2 hour story every 2 years (more likely every 3 years). That's way different then 14 hour long episodes every year, not to mention the difference between "Big Screen" and "Little Screen" requirements to hold an audience's attention and enjoyment.

Moffat's got Sherlock and Dr. Who, why would he need another project, when he already mentions how overwhelming helming just the two shows simultaneously can be.

Why is it OK with everyone to have all these other Mediums for Doctor Who, but, all of a sudden somehow a Theatrical movie is a slap in the face to the Current Showrunner and some kind of "Middle Finger to the audience"?

I haven't seen anyone in the thread call it a slap in the face for Moffat nor a middle finger to the audience.

Really and you've been reading this thread the whole time?

They might not be spelling it out but their pretty much implying that this is the case.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I wouldn't I'm not that obsessed with a TV show.

It's not about being obsessed with a TV show though. Its about a perceived slight against the work you've done.

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that its successful they are going to bring someone new in and he's going to ignore your work entirely. But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going whilst the new guy does his thing. Would you be as sanguine about it?.

Except that's not what the story actually is here -

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that it's so successful they are going to open a new office in another territory, making a different but related product, giving a completely different job than yours to someone new who's done good work in his job, in his territory... But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going in this territory, whilst the new guy does his completely different job to boost the company's fortunes in his territory... Would you be as bothered/upset/bitchy about it...?

 

[Psion]

I wouldn't I'm not that obsessed with a TV show.

It's not about being obsessed with a TV show though. Its about a perceived slight against the work you've done.

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that its successful they are going to bring someone new in and he's going to ignore your work entirely. But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going whilst the new guy does his thing. Would you be as sanguine about it?.

Except that's not what the story actually is here -

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that it's so successful they are going to open a new office in another territory, making a different but related product, giving a completely different job than yours to someone new who's done good work in his job, in his territory... But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going in this territory, whilst the new guy does his completely different job to boost the company's fortunes in his territory... Would you be as bothered/upset/bitchy about it...?

Wellll ... if it were a better territory with better pay and more opportunities for success, I'd at least like to have a shot at it.

 

[RoJoHen]

It's not about being obsessed with a TV show though. Its about a perceived slight against the work you've done.

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that its successful they are going to bring someone new in and he's going to ignore your work entirely. But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going whilst the new guy does his thing. Would you be as sanguine about it?.

Except that's not what the story actually is here -

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that it's so successful they are going to open a new office in another territory, making a different but related product, giving a completely different job than yours to someone new who's done good work in his job, in his territory... But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going in this territory, whilst the new guy does his completely different job to boost the company's fortunes in his territory... Would you be as bothered/upset/bitchy about it...?

Wellll ... if it were a better territory with better pay and more opportunities for success, I'd at least like to have a shot at it.

Sure, but that would mean bringing in someone else to take over your old job. You can't be in two places at once. So, with this analogy, if Moffat went off to do the movie, he'd have to quit the show.

 

[Psion]

Except that's not what the story actually is here -

If tomorrow your manager comes into work and tells you that everything you've done is great, and you've really helped the company but now that it's so successful they are going to open a new office in another territory, making a different but related product, giving a completely different job than yours to someone new who's done good work in his job, in his territory... But feel free to keep doing your job and keep the company going in this territory, whilst the new guy does his completely different job to boost the company's fortunes in his territory... Would you be as bothered/upset/bitchy about it...?

Wellll ... if it were a better territory with better pay and more opportunities for success, I'd at least like to have a shot at it.

Sure, but that would mean bringing in someone else to take over your old job. You can't be in two places at once. So, with this analogy, if Moffat went off to do the movie, he'd have to quit the show.

So? When you get promoted, do you continue to do the same job you did before the promotion?

 

[RoJoHen]

Wellll ... if it were a better territory with better pay and more opportunities for success, I'd at least like to have a shot at it.

Sure, but that would mean bringing in someone else to take over your old job. You can't be in two places at once. So, with this analogy, if Moffat went off to do the movie, he'd have to quit the show.

So? When you get promoted, do you continue to do the same job you did before the promotion?

At the places I've worked? Yes.

But we're assuming that Moffat would want to leave the show in order to do the movie. Maybe he's happy where he is.

 

[Shazam!]

if Moffat went off to do the movie, he'd have to quit the show.

So?

 

[Captaindemotion]

Given how much criticism Moffatt has gotten about making the most recent series hard to follow and so continuity-heavy, surely he'd be entirely the wrong person to make a movie that has to appeal to the casual viewer?

 

[Bacl]

For those who didn't actually click the link...

Yates made clear that his movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but would take a completely fresh approach to the material.

"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," he said.

Sounds like a recipe for success! /sarcasm

... make a movie that has to appeal to the casual viewer?

Don't you wish that instead of always trying to make movies of Star Trek or Doctor Who or whatever for the casual viewer, they made those movies to appeal to the Star Trek or Doctor Who viewers?

We keep making these films to appeal to everyone, and they end up appealing to no one. What's the first thing they are saying about this film? "Let's take what's happening in the show and throw it out the window. Start from scratch." Great. Why bother calling it Doctor Who then?