0/5

Doctor Who’s big screen plans

A movie of Doctor Who that operates separately from the TV series?

Harry Potter director David Yates is teaming up with the BBC on developing a Doctor Who movie with Jane Tranter, head of L.A.-based BBC Worldwide Prods.

But any movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but 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 told Variety.

“It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena.”

That probably means a new actor in the role of the Time Lord.

Yates and Tranter are currently looking for writers on both sides of the Atlantic and will spend two to three years in development.

“We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too.”

There are already two previous films based on the TV series: Doctor Who and the Daleks (1965) and Doctor Who: Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (1966), both starring Peter Cushing.

20 Responses

  1. I gree with those saying it’s a bad idea to have someone else playing the doctor, unless they time the bog screen movie to screen when the new actor takes over the role ion a few years time. Then move on to more TV series or specials. They tried a movie in the passed and it didn’t work.

    @Woody – The Time Wars could be interesting but would they get a new actor to slot into the missing years? And how would that affect the current doctor order, 9-10-11 would all shift a place.

  2. I’d rather see a movie adaptation of Inspector Spacetime.

    @tomothy – the people that make the current series of Doctor Who are the same people that make Sherlock ie. Steven Moffat.

  3. I don’t mind if there is going to be big screen movie that operates outside the continuity of the TV series ala the Peter Cushing ones, but it would be good if there was an actual big screen movie that was a tie-in to the TV series something that has yet to happen.

  4. These films will take years to develop. The reason they got Peter Cushing to play the Doctor in the 1960’s films, that he was known in the US. Have to based the film like the series, not an American version that does not work, like 1996 film, Paul McGann was great, just too bad the film sinked.

  5. @James: I think what David was referring to was the movies that were made outside the main series continuity as the two Hammer Films were and this one would be.

    I’ve heard these rumours before, I didn’t believe them then I believe these ones even less.

  6. The third movie in 1996 was a tele-movie. This one, and the Cushing ones, are cinema releases.

    And it’s frankly, not a terrible idea. The primary reason Peter Cushing played the part in the original films was because William Hartnell was too busy making the television show to make the movie. The problem is the same today – any actor making the television series (and when the movie gets made it probably won’t be Matt Smith) won’t have the time to make a movie as well.

    David Yates has very good cred, and his Harry Potter films were, I think, more faithful to the source material than the other films. Given Jane Traner is involved I think any movie would be a very faithful film, just one that exists alternately to the television series.

    As long as we still get the television series, any movie is a huge bonus.

  7. …even then, the conflicting statements from both parties is confusing. I’ve got no idea.

    In terms of an actual movie, I’m all for it, as long as they make it good.

  8. We don’t know what it will be so we shouldn’t be worried. I’m not, there’s no script and no actors and at this stage they could cancel the whole damn project.

  9. Why does it need to be taken to a bigger arena? Also why would you start from scratch when you have something that is brilliant as it is? You could translate the show into a big screen movie easily, however doing it as movie only? It simply would only be Doctor Who in name and similarities. Remember Doctor Who was a focus grouped show in it’s creation. While it’s far from those beginnings it still has does have an impact on why the show works. It’s one of the few examples where this has actually been successful.

    The show is about interesting characters and the ability to tell a wide range of stories. A film would be limited to a story. Just think how it’d work if you loosely looked at the approach of the current revamping. You have the Doctor coming to earth, there’s a big threat. He meets his companion, they get involved, save the day and then can go anywhere in time and space. That alone would be one movie.

    Then what a sequel? Would it continue straight on? where 2-3 years later we are still seeing the companion getting used to it. Then have some stand alone story set when and where ever? Or would we pick up in the future where the companion and the doctor already have a friendship ect.

    The entire format of the show simply would not work in movies unless it was immensely different and not what makes the show good. Which comes out of the fact it was designed and created through trying to specifically create a certain type of tv show. With a whole lot of thought and effort gone into it. I can just see the approach now, it’ll be like the Robert Downey Sherlock Homes as the Doctor, with a weird steam punk take on the technology and the Tardis. With some hot 20 something American Girl as the companion and at the end of the film they’ll kiss.

  10. It’s a terrible, terrible idea and should not be made.

    I want a DW film, but any film Should follow on and be related to the series, otherwise it’s just a horribly twisted remake that will never be as good as the show. It shouldn’t completely rewrite everything and recast everyone we’ve fallen in love with.

    Oh btw, there was a third movie in 1996, too.

  11. If it were made by the same people who make the current series, then I’d wait for DVD or FTA, I wouldn’t waste my money. A new production adn writing team would get my interest.

    A different movie based direction could work well. They have the two directions for Sherlock Holmes at the moment, one modern day take with Benedict Cumberbatch on the small screen and the Robery Downey Jr version on film set in the original period. Both different takes, but still very well produced and portrayed styles without stepping on the toes of each other and breaking back story.

Leave a Reply