Doctor Who celebrated its 48th anniversary recently, but news that the august time-travel serial may make the transition to Hollywood was met with dismay, indifference and mockery by followers, the uninterested and aficionados alike. As one Guardian commenter snickered: "Justin Timberlake to do the voice of K9?"
These are all understandable responses. I don't like change or new things either, and I'd hide in a police box if I thought it would help avoid them. But there are several reasons why a Who movie may be the best thing to happen to – warning, terrible word coming up – the franchise, along with an elephantine caveat of why it may not, which I'll come to in due course.
First up, we don't need to worry about canon. David Yates, who is behind the mooted reboot, said a "radical transformation" was needed for the show to work as a movie, and that they'd "start from scratch". This means there'll be none of the soul-searching of trying to fit whatever is made into the show's engagingly odd and complex backstory and mythology. The film starts as a blank canvas – it's a man in a blue box, he can travel anywhere in space and time. Anything could happen. That's exciting – particularly as the series has, of late, got itself tied up in overarching back-plots and cliffhangers. It is, to an extent, choking on its own continuity. A movie could be a standalone story, as is much of Who at its best.
Next up: swallow your cardboard-set pride and think how awesome Doctor Who could be with a big budget. I'm not saying the show in its current incarnation looks cheap or, worse, should be judged solely on the number of explosions – of which there are already plenty. And despite the financial constraints the BBC does a much better job of hiding them than they were able to in the pre-CGI era. Still, Neil Gaiman's brilliant episode The Doctor's Wife had to be reduced in scope, money issues preventing him from fully exploring the Tardis's twisting innards. Imagine a writer like him being given free reign.
And now to the prickly fear of the Doctor being "Americanised". I'll tackle this in two parts. First, choice of actor – I don't care where he or she is from, as long as they're right for the part. Mos Def made an excellent Ford Prefect in the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy film, though I've no idea how he ever convinced Arthur he was really from Guildford.
Second, many people have a protective attitude towards the show as a whole like it's an avatar of Britishness – or at least Englishness – despite the central character being an alien from Gallifrey. A similar, if less understandable, parochialism was shown over the Cadbury's hoo-hah: how dare our multinational corporate venture be owned by Americans. They wouldn't understand, they'll made us eat Hershey's. Americans understand Who all right – there's two generations hooked on it due to past PBS repeats and current blockbuster status on BBC America.
If anything, I'd be more fearful of the opposite – a kind of sealed-in-aspic version of a Britain that never was. A mawkish, imagined place that no one I know has ever been to, like Richard Curtis's versions of Notting Hill (or 19th century Provence for that matter), or the twee tourist Arcadia as seen in the joyless Harry Potter movies.
Which is where the elephant comes in. Yates directed the last four Potter films.
The idea of him being connected to the project is indeed troubling. But the film is still in the early stages of development hell, and anything could happen. Yates could be kidnapped by the Master, and Terry Gilliam might step in to direct. Gaiman may be free to write. And Timberlake would make a fantastic K9.
• This article was commissioned following a suggestion made by Pairubu. If there's a subject you'd like to see covered on Comment is free, please visit our You tell us page
Comments
6 December 2011 10:39AM
Much as I like the two 60s films, they are pretty rubbish. So the odds aren't good that a new film will be worthwhile.
6 December 2011 10:40AM
Neither the film nor this thread are going to make terribly good viewing, I fear.
6 December 2011 10:41AM
Mos Def was a terrible Ford Prefect! His lacklustre performance was one of many, many reasons I hated the H2G2 film.
I was, at most, apathetic to the idea of another Who film, but the thought that it could end up like the Hitchhiker's guide movie chills my blood. Kill it. Kill it now.
6 December 2011 10:41AM
CAUTION: Remember the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy: brilliant radio show, acceptably good TV, God awful film.
6 December 2011 10:41AM
I hope it's better than the one with Eric "brother of Julia" Roberts and a McGann because that was terrible.
6 December 2011 10:41AM
And that, right there, is why it is blasphemy. If it's not part of the canon, it's not real Doctor Who. It would be better left unmade. Instead, give the budget to the TV series and make more episodes of that per season (say, 20). But there can only be one Doctor, however many incarnations he may have. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be exterminated.
6 December 2011 10:42AM
As long as the Doctor is played by Shia LaBeouf, as long as he meets a feisty stowaway played by Scarlett Johansson, as long as they meet Shakespeare in Victorian London, as long as they have an antagonistic relationship initially based on bickering that later blossoms into romance, as long as their evil nemesis is vaguely Arabic, as long as the TARDIS transforms into a really cool car, and as long as jelly babies are replaced with Twinkies, I can see no problem with this proposed film.
6 December 2011 10:46AM
It'll be awesome and I simply can't wait. As if it would be crap in the day and age that Stephen Moffat works with Speilberg and audience expectation has never been higher. Bring it on.
6 December 2011 10:46AM
If you re-imagine or re-boot it then it's no longer Dr Who, even if it has the same name.
A large part of the point of the current series is the backstory and what you do with that.
6 December 2011 10:46AM
In fairness, McGann did well with what he was given and went on to be a great Doctor in the Big Finish audio episodes.
6 December 2011 10:47AM
It would be Doctor Poo.
6 December 2011 10:49AM
@James
Sorry, spotted a bit of a straw man there. The best episodes of the 'new era' are those that haven't pushed the budget - Turn Left being as good an example as any.
Who is best when it's tight, personal and claustrophobic - just can't see that translating well to the big screen.
And of the best bigger budget episodes - could you see something like the River story arc working when condensed into 120mins with no time for enjoying thinking and wondering what's coming next?
And would a big budget studio really take a risk like letting someone like Neil Gaiman write the whole thing?
6 December 2011 10:51AM
Moffat has been on the record saying that Yates is talking out of his arse and no film would go ahead without the current writing staff and the BBC Cardiff crew.
Doctor Who would never suit film as a medium, A lot more can be told in a 2 or 3 part episode than a 90minute+ film.
Anyway Matt Smith incarnation is one of favourite Doctors.
(Fanboy request for special featuring Paul Mcgann during the Time War inserted here)
after all The End of Time was shite but Timothy Dalton made a great Rasillon .more of him please!
6 December 2011 10:51AM
Viz did Doctor Poo already.
He was contantly travelling through time and space looking for a bush behind which he could weigh anchor.
6 December 2011 10:52AM
Count your blessings - it could be Michael Bay.
6 December 2011 10:53AM
Ha ha! Nice work.
"He said it would make an awesome movie and i'm like it so wouldn't."
Where am I?
6 December 2011 10:58AM
Sort the series, which is swiftly disapearing up the black hole of it own arse, first.
6 December 2011 11:00AM
Who'd go to see it without the BBC's hype.
6 December 2011 11:01AM
Yes, and the big bucks left their imprint all over an unrecognisable doctor, brutally rewritten (half human?) to appeal to audiences alien to the show's essential nature. What would they buy? Action, SFX and super hero posturing. If the media corporations want to make loadsa money from a time travel story, let them invent their own. Oh, I forgot - they only take other people's ideas and bloat them beyond recognition.
6 December 2011 11:02AM
According to Private Eye, it's Moffat who's talking out of his arse. The negotiations, apparently, have gone on without his knowledge, and he's trying to spin his way out. It's like Michael Grade never left...
6 December 2011 11:03AM
Steven Moffat ruled out a movie re-boot pretty catagorically a few days ago, so it looks unlikely that this'll happen.
As to the (now moot) question of whether a re-boot is necessary, its a matter of taste of course, but personally, I've watched an embarrassingly large amount of Doctor Who over the years and have to say, its as good now as its been since Tom Baker. Very popular too. The show's going through something of a golden period, so I can't really see much need to start a separate, parallel version on the big screen.
A movie version of the Matt Smith/Steven Moffat Doctor on the other hand - now that really would be interesting.
6 December 2011 11:06AM
Go and lock yourself in the Pandorica for your heresy.
Then he might as well make up his own film, and leave this British institution alone.
6 December 2011 11:07AM
Utterly utterly wrong. The film had other problems, but good grief he was miscast!
6 December 2011 11:07AM
Hey, I really think those dayleks are awesome, dude.
6 December 2011 11:13AM
But he doesn't own Doctor Who...
I disagree with James Walsh about David Yates: I think he did a very good job with the HP films. But yeah a reboot film is a poor idea.
6 December 2011 11:16AM
There's good play in a stand-alone Doctor, *in canon*. I agree that a film could be good, but no reboots necessary: but equally there's no reason we have to encompass the whole history for a new audience.
There can for example be an embarrassingly flimsy in-character reason why the lead is someone else - a cameo from Smith trying out a new-found widget which gives him (and companion) new appearances, maybe even throws the Tardis to a distant part of the Whoniverse where threat X has to be neutralised before the McGuffin collapses in a cloud of incredulity particles and catapults the Doctor back home.
Threat X, of course, could always be something distantly familiar, maybe from the 4th/5 Doctor's time, but now much bigger and badder.
And the mysterious widget could be seeded in one of the TV series, just to place continuity.
Easy.
6 December 2011 11:18AM
'Yeah, 'cos that worked so well for Hitchhikers Guide didn't it.
Though if the movie hires Zooey Deschanel as the Doc's companion then I might be persuaded.
6 December 2011 11:19AM
A big budget movie-length stand-alone story?
How about the time war?
Which would fill the gap between the old Doctors and the new "generation" yet would still be a "stand alone" event.
6 December 2011 11:19AM
After Torchwood, I'm surprised anyone would even consider allowing America to touch Doctor Who.
6 December 2011 11:24AM
Reading his comments in context, all he seems to be doing is giving his version of the story, watching Yates talking he has his version of the story and it's very different, so either Yates dreamed the whole thing up or Moffat is simply out of the loop.
6 December 2011 11:27AM
Fair point, but it would be odd for them to overrule the (v.successful) show-runner so decisively. Would the BBC really be willing to offend him so much that he packs up his talent and goes elsewhere? They've done pretty well out of him in recent years, with this and Sherlock.
6 December 2011 11:28AM
A brilliant piece James, and whole-heartedly agree with most of it and a fully fledged Who afficionado - but Doctor Who being like Cadburys? The franchise could never be compared to the Bournville institution - and the Kraft takeover had far worse repurcussions than a Who movie having an American actor would have.
Aside from that it's about time DW gets the Hollywood treatment...
6 December 2011 11:29AM
As much as I admire the work of Private Eye and Ian Hislop, I think the arse talking is coming from that direction (as well as that of Mr Yates).
RTD (who, sadly, is stepping away from writing & production for the moment, because of personal issues) did a great job bringing back Dr Who; Steven Moffatt has taken it to even greater heights. Dr Who is now a worldwide megabrand (hence Yates wanting to get in on the act) and along with Top Gear it makes BBC Worldwide a very healthy profit; so are the BBC really going to risk that, and risk pissing off Moffatt (Sherlock also sold very well overseas) into the bargain. The focus now is on 2012/13 and the 50th Anniversary, I suspect that Moff will get pretty much all the budget he needs for that.
6 December 2011 11:33AM
Well if you really want to reboot without disrupting the cannon, there is one obvious story, the origin of the Doctor.
The action could involve a group of young Time Lords involved in a cataclysmic event on / involving Galifrey.
One of them is the Doctor, but not yet called that, and we don't know which one it is until much later. They are not able to fully win the day and some die, with the survivor stealing a TARDIS to go into exile and discarding his name as he does so.
6 December 2011 11:35AM
Young Doctors!
If you can get the rights to the title off the Aussies, you have a winner.
6 December 2011 11:37AM
@DWearing
I think your question can be rephrased as "do TV executives never do stupid things?"
Need I answer that?
6 December 2011 11:38AM
The X Files films show the folly of basing something on a TV series with a tortuous, labyrinth-like back story.
6 December 2011 11:41AM
Good God. What has become of the Guardian?
6 December 2011 11:41AM
While it would be refreshing to have a Doctor Who story that didn't vanish up its own pretentious arse, having an Americanised version would be too dreadful to contemplate. Just look how the acid-dream whimsicality of the 1960's Prisoner has turned into the bloody awful adventure epic in the US remake.
6 December 2011 11:42AM
But what would he be called? Given that the series seems to be building up to some sort of climax involving the Doctor's real name and mention of it in a movie would be a "spoiler".
6 December 2011 11:43AM
@Triffid100
Quite right. Turned a decent series into a vastly overblown load of nonsense with a completely ridiculous denouement.
6 December 2011 11:45AM
Not after Torchwood: Miracle Day.
6 December 2011 11:46AM
I second this idea, and posted on another thread a week or two ago when this story first broke, how I think the model such a film should consider, would be something like "X-Men: First Class".
Now I don't know how many here watched/enjoyed that movie (yes for me on both counts), but I reckon the makers of a "Who" movie should have a go at an "origins" story - e.g. the Doctor and the Master on Gallifrey, before the latter went "bad" and the Doctor nicked a Type 40 TARDIS. It's often been insinuated that the two Time Lords were not always enemies (Pertwee and Delgado's portrayals in the 70s serials have more than a little of the "frenemies" air to them), and a story about the "parting of the ways" between the Doctor and the Master could work well.
Of course, there are pitfalls - not least, because for an "origins" story to work for a wider audience, said audience needs to know and/or care about the characters in the first place. How many American or worldwide filmgoers would be aware of who the Doctor and the Master are, that they are arch-opponents, and that they may have been friends in the past?
As a "Who" fan, though, I'd jump at the chance of a "before they were enemies" story, whether it came as a movie, novel or comic book...
6 December 2011 11:48AM
Indeed, too much budget has spoiled a lot of films. Jaws was intended to have a lot more shark, for example, but they couldn't make one that looked real enough and Spielberg was forced to improvise. A small budget can lead to inventiveness in storytelling and suspense that goes out of the window if you can do anything.
6 December 2011 11:48AM
Hello everyone - thanks for your comments. I wrote this a week or so ago so was then unaware of the latest 'will it won't it happen' machinations (thanks for the heads up DWearing).
You'll note that my argument is more 'there are reasons why it doesn't necessarily have to be awful' than 'woo it's going to be ace', particularly if the mooted Yates thing happens. I see some disagreement, but I do find the Harry Potter films a disgrace. Think the books would suit a HBO/BBC crossover series epic much better.
6 December 2011 11:51AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
6 December 2011 11:52AM
Daleks, It has to have Daleks
6 December 2011 11:55AM
This would be a disaster of untold proportions.
Doctor Who is underfunded, slightly shitty British TV. That's it's charm and it's signature. It must stay that way.
6 December 2011 11:57AM
Robert Rodriquez should direct, and Danny Trejo should be the Doctor. Doctor Quien.
6 December 2011 11:58AM
@chrissetti
I was so afraid of what a disaster the Hitchhiker's film would be I didn't go and see it on first release, but curiosity got the better of me and watched it on telly. I thought it could have been a lot, lot worse, and frankly, what they did to the guide (like some cheap flash animation compared to the gorgeous, simple and clever design in the tv series) and the smugness of Stephen Fry much worse than, say Mos Def, who impressed me. Ford Prefect isn't a particuarly well rounded character in the books, and I think Mos Def made him work. My point more widely is that the Doctor doesn't necessarily have to be played by a Briton.
@Oroklini
Ha! Perfect. Although I had no idea who Shia LaBeouf was and had to google him. Ick.