Slashdot Mirror
Doctor Who To Become Hollywood Feature Film
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Variety reports that David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films, is teaming up with the BBC to turn its iconic sci-fi TV series Doctor Who into a Hollywood franchise. 'We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right,' says Yates. 'It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena.' But not everyone is enamored with the idea of Doctor Who on the big screen. 'I fear that high production values and the inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters that a Hollywood treatment brings will destroy the show,' writes Andrew M. Brown in the Telegraph. 'The ecosystem of a great television programme is a delicate thing. Please, Hollywood, don't spoil Doctor Who."
Please, Hollywood, don't spoil Doctor Who.
That's like asking the school bully not to beat you up and take your lunch money.
He does it every day, he's going to do it every day, and now it's your turn.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
But a director of a Harry Potter film getting withing 10 meters of Dr. Who fills me with a cold, evil feeling.
Either that or the breakfast burrito was bad...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yes, we wouldn't want to risk sexualizing Amy Pond.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
DO NOT WANT!
What the hell?? I mean why would anyone...oh yeah...greed. Forgot about that for a moment.
I sincerely hope that this does not get made.
Anybody got any Daleks or Cybermen we can sic on these guys?
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Because the Doctor Who movie that we made with the Canadians was great!
Actually- it wasn't that bad- but it wasn't Doctor Who. It was something else entirely.
Really, it all depends on how they execute it- they can make it good or they can make a real hash of it. I'll probably watch it regardless.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The last thing Doctor Who needs is the Hollywood treatment. Please tell me this is a bad dream.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Take a short miniseries and stretch it out to a full series to milk it and make the plot run like molasses. Add in a lot of mindless action with big explosions and helicopter chases, because that's what American shows look like, right?
I'm afraid of what they're going to do to Doctor Who, but if Torchwood was any example, keep Hollywood's dirty hands off it.
No no no, for the love of God, no!!!
A major aspect of the show is the fact that it is small-screen. Its roots are in the campiness that the early shows had, and that occurred because of the tiny budget and fast turnaround. The effect of that can still been seen today.
The campiness and fun will be eliminated in a Hollywood blockbuster treatment, and it will turn into just another sex-and-explosions vehicle.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
I can see it now
Doctor Who in 3D!!
With Tom Baker brought back in full youth and form
via the miracle of CGI.
After all, as everyone knows he was the only Doctor
that was, The Doctor. The rest are just pretenders.
Yah, that's the ticket.
As an American, proud as I am, I wish to apologia in
advance for what Hollywood is surely to do to the Doctor
Who image.
That said, recent incarnations of the series
just are plain bad and I can no longer watch these past few years, but I suppose the lack of weed and youth
are the reasons it seems to bad to me now.
Yah, still a fan of Baker Who.
Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
It'll be as just as good as Hitchhiker's Guide!
Dr Who has been around for 50 years. It has survived pretty much anything you could throw at it. It will survive hollywood.
I have to wonder, however, if the folks doing the market research realize just how adverse Dr Who fans will be to a big budget movie. One of the appeals of Dr Who is the low production value of it, and the ability to take risks that goes along with that. It's unconventional, it's interesting. These are two attributes that hollywood has demonstrated a knack for destroying. Further, one of better attributes of Dr Who has always been it's "continuity" ( which is hilarious in and of itself ), of it's long scope story arcs. Again, not a "movie" thing.
A Dr Who movie will need to somehow work in the back story, build an interesting plot and come to a conclusion. All within 2 hours. Unless they plan for a series of movies, which would make more sense. That way they can build the backstory and get the plot rolling, then continue in the second movie and finish up in a third. But that might be too much of an investment for a relatively unknown franchise ( unknown to anyone outside geekdom at any rate ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20100702
is Captain Mike Yates.
Seriously, though... a movie could be great, or it could be terrible, and I would be ok with either result. If it's good, then huzzah! I'll watch it and enjoy it. If it's terrible, then yay! We can ignore it as far as canon goes (like that terrible 80's thing... Paul McGann made a good Doctor, the Tardis set was awesome, the reinvented theme was ok... the rest sucked goat ass).
My big fear is that it will be kind of decent. Too good to ignore, but too bad to really energize the franchise.
But if this is going to be it's own continuity, then I guess do whatever you want, Hollywood. If I don't like it, I'll ignore it. Though, the influx of new Who fans who are only familiar with the movie(s) will be annoying to deal with. But that's life.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I would only watch it if Hugh Laurie played the Doctor.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
I personally am looking forward to a bunch of people stumbling around with a human inventor whom they call "Doctor Who" as they remake one of the more pedestrian and overused storylines. That would be so much better than, say, bringing back Paul McGann (who got robbed in my opinion) and filling in the final time war and destruction of Gallifrey that occurred between Doctor Who (1996) and Rose (2005) but was never filmed.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Dr Who has already been ruined. They may as well sell it for scrap now.
The latest season has been an utter disgrace.
I'm a big fan, I've seen every episode.
(those early black and white ones are pretty campy)
The recent episode about the fat bumbling idiot with the talking baby was the straw that broke the camel's back.
"herp a derp... I'm a fat moron, look, I walked into a wall and knocked over a display-case! hahahah, now my baby is making cutting remarks about me! Oh dear! aliens! oh dear, I've bumbled and stumbled into their grasp, how will I ever escape? Maybe if I really *really* love my baby the power of my love will make them explode! KABOOM! yay! it worked! *happily ever after*"
I haven't been able to watch it again since that day.
What has always made Dr Who so endearing to many of its long time fans (myself included) is its cheap effects and campiness.
I just can't see Hollywood leaving that alone - they'll make the effects "better" and the storylines more "compelling"....
Sort of like what they tried to do with that abortion of a movie called "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy." It paled when compared to the comfortable cheeziness of the BBC TV production.
No, Hollywood can't leave a good thing alone.
BTW - Long Live Tom Baker and Rest in Peace Elisabeth Sladen
"Murderer? Well, that's a harsh word. I prefer to think of myself as a Mortality Technician."
I read the article which provided the argument against turning Dr. Who into a movie, and I disagree with most of the points. A few comments:
1. Length. TV episodes are one hour, which requires a tight plot. A movie would add an extra hour, which the writer of the article claims would ruin that. He says he's from the Tom Baker generation (I was too), but he seems to have forgotten that during the Tom Baker era, the show was a bunch of miniseries. Much longer than a movie. Even now, there are plenty of two-part and three-part episodes, and really the only difference between that and a movie is that in TV there's an incentive to add a cliffhanger each hour. Turning it into a movie actually gives them more freedom because there isn't that incentive.
2. Sexualization of the characters. First, this isn't necessary even in a Hollywood film, so it might not happen. Second, he complains about the Doctor getting younger and younger to give him more sex appeal, but that's already happening on the TV show. Hollywood has nothing to do with it. Third, in the latest incarnation there's already sexual chemistry between the Doctor and his companion. Granted, it's all misdirection and misleading the audience into thinking there's more there than there really is, and other than one kiss, Amy has been completely faithful to Rory. But you can't deny that the sexual chemistry between the Doctor and Amy is there. Again, this is all without Hollywood.
3. Cheap sets and props. True, that's been a hallmark of Dr. Who from the beginning, and some of it still remains in the latest series. However, there's plenty of high tech special effects these days in the show. Will the big screen change that ratio in favor of the high tech at the expense of the cheap? No doubt. But nostalgia aside, who really cares?
So all of his concerns are things that are already happening in the show. Could Hollywood blow it? Sure. But if so, it won't be because of any of the things he complains about. The smartest thing for Hollywood to do would be to hire the writers from some of the better episodes of the past few years. Stick with what makes the show great and let the Hollywood format support the story rather than supplant it.
"It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."
Isn't this a good enough reason not to do it at all?
Uwe Boll
They've been trying to add romantic interest since the 2005 reboot. Look at Rose. And Amy. And River. And...
One of the things I liked about Dr Who was that he was old enough to be cool and detached. He thinks his way out of a problem, not shoots his way out.
Now it's all "RUN!" and zapping things with his magic wand, err, sonic screwdriver. And sublimated smootchy-face that would embarrass booger and Mrs diPesto.
I've liked the story arcs with Amy, the way they try to enmesh every single goddamned little thing back into the big story. I just remind myself this isn't Dr Who, it's Han Solo with a Time Machine and a British accent.
Oh, and apparently they're trying for some sort of record on how fast they can turn over doctors.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
i am going to have nightmares for months now of Ashton Kutcher as the Dr. although Charlie Sheen could easily play the master. :-P
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Uh, isn't Doctor Who fairly sexualized already (especially the 10th Doctor)? I mean, they have lesbian characters, guys from the 51st century who will have sex with anything, Amy Pond wanted the Doctor to "sort" her. Or is this simply an American vs British thing?
I figure an American version of Doctor Who would be more like this
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
... since he was so faithful to the concept of John Constaine, Keanu Reeves will be cast as the Doctor.
One of his companions will be a street-smart, wisecracking black man.
One of his companions will be a 20-something slacker genius computer hacker (hollywood-style)
The third companion will be Mary Jane Smith, played by either Christina Ricci or Angelina Jolie
The hacker will manage to hack into the heart of the TARDIS by guessing its password, which will be "TARDIS"
The TARDIS will be updated so that it's chameleon circuit is stuck on the form of a porta-potty. hilarity will, of course, ensue.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
when they play it on the TVGuide channel. Beside that, I'd be happy to disavow such a thing. Doctor Who is strictly a product of Great Britain, and it should stay that. I'm an American, and I know absolutely that Hollywood would turn such a franchise into an oozing pile of PC trash.
Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.
Anyway. This better not suck.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
You had me at "big tits".
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
So... Rowen Atkinson or Johnny Depp as the Doctor?
I drank what? -- Socrates
If Hollywood can come up with better special effects, I'm all for it. As fictional villains, the Daleks are great. In all practicality however, the design is crazy flawed. If I were a Time Lord I'd have a hard time being really scared of them.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Let Hollywood do whatever they want and call if non-canon, like the Peter Cushing movies. They didn't destroy the franchise. Ignore it, and it never happened. Just like the Hitchhiker's Guide, Puppet Masters, Thunderbirds, and anything that claims to associated with that Star Trek series with Shatner.
If anything, a Hollywood movie will get people to watch the TV show when they realize how much better it is.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Exterminate the Doc-tor!
We will exterminate him where he is most vulnerable. Holly-wood. The human producer and direc-tor will be his undoing.
Good-bye, Doc-tor!
Don't forget the gay sex scenes, which are RTD's trademark and get shoehorned into every single thing he's made, irrespective of whether it actually makes sense to the story or whether sex scenes (between people of any orientation) are appropriate thematically. For some strange reason, he's actually proud of this when he's interviewed. Torchwood made it to, what, episode 3 before they had alien lesbians? And then finally admitted it had no plan with the episode 'kiss kiss, bang bank', the only episode of any show I've seen where the title was a complete and accurate summary of the entire episode.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The article talks about the ''bigscreen'', not Hollywood! There are places other than Hollywood that are capable of producing films, some are excellent -- like the James Bond or Harry Potter films. They might need to move out of South Wales to Pinewood or Leavesden -- and thus hopefully avoid Americanisation, which would ruin it.
If Hollywood was a person...
Rowan Atkinson played a great doctor already. If you haven't seen it, you should.
Heck, my wife hates Star Trek but enjoyed that movie
Do you think it is wise to broadcast your motive to the entire net while the police is still investigating her brutal and prolonged death?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
To be fair to the Americans, the British films were pretty bad too...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059126/
He's a older like earlier doctors, maybe bring a bit of that educated detachment back into it rather than being "hip," and more of a father figure to the famale companion than a possible sex interest. Laurie's got a strong grounding in comedy, so he could be as funny as Tom Baker, and he's great at drama too.
I predict that this will be like Coupon the Movie all over again.
... that Hollywood doesn't pull a "Green Lantern" on "Dr. Who".
No word on who may play The Doctor. *Please* let the role be played by a female: the potential for Dr-Who-esq humour would be immense !! And of course a male "companion" !
Doctor Who has passed into the realm of Modern Mythology now. Just like Dracula, Superman, and Star Trek has now become part of our "mythology". These characters and stories may take a rest from time to time but there will always be someone to come along and retell/re-imagine/re-work them. Doctor Who is just too fertile a ground for good stories to leave too long. Heck, we are still getting milage from Sinbad, Hercules, and Atlantis! The theatrical Who movies of the '60s didn't kill a much younger series... no worries here.
No worries. If he makes a mess of it we can always go back and kill his grandfather..... What was that? Is that you Adric?
I see a lot of comments in this threat that Doctor Who has already jumped the shark. I concur, and I haven't even seen anything later than David Tennant. When in your opinion did Doctor Who go irrevocably off track?
In my opinion it was way back with Sylvester McCoy when the seventh Doctor blew up Skaro's sun with something-or-other of Omega. I just can't handle the idea of The Doctor committing genocide -- and smirking while he does it. Contrast with the fourth Doctor's moral dilemma in the Genesis of the Daleks, and you can see the quality of the writing had already sunk very from from its peak.
At this point I would rather let it die and remember it fondly, the way it was.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Naw. Sounds like a job for Will Smith.
It needs quite a radical transformation
Oops.
It needs quite a radical regeneration
There, is that better?
If you thought the Doctor was politically biased, why didn't you just root for the Daleks?
"I fear that high production values and the inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters that a Hollywood treatment brings will destroy the show."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Leela!
(Ha, you thought I was going to go with Amy Pond, didn't you? Too easy. Old school, it's how I roll.)
The next Dr. Who: Will Ferrell. Just shoot me now.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Bring back Christopher Eccleston and it might have a shot.
People have already mentioned Rowan Atkinson (bean there, done that) and Hugh Laurie, I'd like to add
Peter Woodward
Patrick Stewart
John Hurt
Sam Neill
Anyone remember the side kick, Peri? In 1984 they cast Nicola Bryant, as Perpugilliam Brown, and she lasted through 2 Doctors. Towards the end, they even let her wear entire sets of clothing.
- and Hollywood could pull something off and make it work in such a way that it appeals to both "Hollywood" audience and the Dr. Who faithfull.
The trick would be letting the glamour and the hollywoodization fall on the companions. Let the companions develop the love interests etc, and be the eye candy- just don't make that the main part of the story.
I think America can enjoy a quirky excentric professor type Dr. Who, like the original doctors portrayed.
I think they could remake the original Dr. Who episode "an unearthly child" into the film- just make the girl older- high school age and let her be the "coming of age" character that Hollywood so loves.
They just have to balance it right- so as to not make the "Hollywood side" of things the main part of the story.
Good special effects needn't ruin the story if encorporated correctly. What the '96 movie did wrong was turn Dr. Who into an action hero. He never should be.
It's OK to have a companion that gets into a little bit of action- as long as that is not over emphasised. Think Perry Mason's P.I. that would get into a few action roles- but it was never about him- it was about Perry Mason.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Craig Ferguson as the doctor!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
From your post, I can tell you haven't watched much Torchwood. For which I envy you...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
'I fear that high production values and the inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters that a Hollywood treatment brings will destroy the show,'
Where has this guy been for the past two years? That train has already left the station.... I've been seriously disappointed with Doctor Who in the last couple of years; it's possibly just me, but the whole storyline with River being Amy's daughter etc., has really put me off. Sure, all things should evolve and mature - we really couldn't have aliens made out of cardboard boxes these days (though I would likely prefer that), but I just don't like the direction it has taken. :-) ).
I've been a fan of Doctor Who since 1968, so a lot of my disappointment is probably through nostalgia. I mostly stopped watching at Colin Baker, detested Bonnie Langford. Christopher Eccleston was like a breath of fresh air (perhaps because it was nice to have a Doctor with a northern accent
This is going to be a disaster. Look there is a vast difference in styles between British and American shows that just don't cross over very well. Im not saying American TV is bad (reality TV is very bad but thats a worldwide problem) but whenever the Americans try to adopt another countries show it loses what made it appealing in the first place.
I remember the horrible mess that was the US version of The Office, as well as the Australian show Kath & Kim.
I remember Hollywood wanted to mess with Red Dwarf, replace The Cat with a female, which alone would have ruined it. What?
Please America, you do you're own thing well and other countries do their thing well. When you try to "Americanize" an overseas franchise you kill the charm that made it good in the first place.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
1. Daleks. Use the color-coded Daleks but use their funny appearance more deceivingly and realistically lethal. I mean, much of their bodies are supposed to be highly sophisticated tech not people hidden inside. Use it. (Turn all those half-balls on the side into hunter-seeker spider-like drones?)
2. The Tardis is big. Really, really big. Except lately we never see much of what's in it. (One exception was when the Tardis computer was extracted) Earlier series often showed the swimming pool, personal rooms, walk in closets, the warning room, etc. If Hollywood's doing it at least take advantage to show off the greatness that is the Tardis. Explore the concept. The Doctor is a scientist and time/space traveller and he doesn't have a personal lab or nic-nac room inside?
3. The Time Lords. I was a little annoyed that the Time Lords all become Evil and Had To Be Banished. Maybe it's because I liked Romana and the times the Doctor visited but, again, have Gallefry live again.
4. The Master. I loved the look of the old Masters. The new one seems to have lost much to the Time Wars. Make him intelligent Evil Overlord who pays attention to the Things I Will Not Do When I Am an Evil Overlord. Heck, have him READING it during the movie-now that would be funny!
5. Companions. Have a more useful seeming Companion mixed in with one or two that needs to be rescued. Not too much so but Spock and McCoy were not captain of the ship and they rocked.
6. K-9. Classic reborn but no real dogs please. Or perhaps mix him with the T-2000 and make him a K-9 with monomolecular teeth. Woof!
Of cours,e the movie might stink, but there's no reason to assume so.
Yes there is. The two Cushing films were British, not Hollywood and the only time the US made a Doctor Who film we got the 8th doctor. So going on past performance there is EVERY reason to think that a Hollywood production of Dr. Who will be terrible although I really hope I'm wrong.
How many of you have forgotten? There have been three Doctor Who movies already.
Why couldn't it have been J.J. Abrams? After what he did with Star Trek, I'd trust him with just about any major reboot.
There's the movie with Peter Cushing as Dr Who which diehard Dr Who fans try to pretend never existed. A good actor and Daleks could not save it from bad Hollywood style writing - and that's back when people in the movie industry actually cared whether a script was any good or not.
Not as good as Joanna Lumley :)
Jackie Chan is getting a bit battered from the bigger stunts but can still pull off the melodrama and slapstick. Nearly everything he has directed has turned some of the stupidist and crappiest script and the confines of a low budget into gold. Just keep it out of Hollywood.
I know these aren't Hollywood -- Hollywood would have done much, much worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(1996_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Who_and_the_Daleks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daleks'_Invasion_Earth:_2150_A.D.
You know... Ted.
And The Master is Alex Winter.
Hollywood already did this the last time the show went to the chopping block on Season 26. If this is a go and there is a Doctor change, Johnny Depp would work well with his character range.
The on person who fucked up Harry Potter is about to FU another great franchise.. I never understood why he even got the chance to direct another HP let alone 4! his directing was bad as hell..
I totally get what you are saying but look what happed to Hitchhikers when they turned it into a movie the second time. The first Trillian still sets my socks on fire though so it isn't all bad and Whoopi Goldberg would make an excellent companion - as would Ashton Kutcher, lolol!
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Samwise to Frodo in Osgiliath... "We don't belong here."
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Nah, Ashton's the Companion. Whoopi Goldberg will be the Doctor.
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
Hollywood also crapped on 'Hitchhiker to the Galaxy'. And still the old BBC series and the books are fun.
I think they tried that in the late 90s and while that movie was not that bad it never worked out. Unless they get somebody like Peter Jackson to direct it and maybe a 600 millions budget for five movies. And for fuck sake don't recast the Doctor just pick one of the recent doctor's and work a story during his timeline. Last time war with Eccleston, Dalton anybody?
Who is entertaining, without question. But the BBC is as politically correct as the DNC, and Who needs a Hartwell instead of a Smith.
If you mean that the BBC doesn't actively promote racist, sexist, homophobic ageist drivel, you're right it probably is politically correct. But then again, you're a fucking fascist moron, so whatever.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And ugly actors?
I'd rather have ugly actors who can act than pretty actors who can't, but then again I'm not a superficial twat like you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't know about anyone else, but I regularly encounter people who have never heard of Doctor Who. I'm not saying a bad Doctor Who film would be fine, but any Doctor Who film will help expose the show, especially to Americans.
And it deserves more exposure.
"No one is more miserable than the person who wills everything and can do nothing." -Emperor Claudius 10 BC - AD 54
Tom Baker could play the original crotchety doctor. And you could have awkward sexual tension that's become a hallmark of the new series every time he tries to whip out his Jelly Babies. :D