The Jury Room

by **HGervais** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:56 pm

And it won't be starring David Tennant or Matt Smith, the BBC is going all Batman Begins/Casino Royale with the franchise as the director of the last four Harry Potter films is set to helm the project. Details from Variety.

by **JoshRode** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:08 pm

This will either be really good or really really bad...

by **mkiker2089** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:47 pm

The bean counter in me can't help but dread this. They are going to ruin the cannon of it. I'm not a stickler for these things usually but that doesn't mean blatant disregard is called for either. If the show were done, as was the case with Star Trek that would be one thing. To run two concurrent universes however is just too strange. What do they hope to gain from this?

by **Andrew Forbes** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:05 pm

mkiker2089 wrote:What do they hope to gain from this?

An audience that is too daunted by a massive, established universe to invest in the show?

by **mkiker2089** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:30 pm

Andrew Forbes wrote:
mkiker2089 wrote:What do they hope to gain from this?

An audience that is too daunted by a massive, established universe to invest in the show?

Isn't that what the reboot was supposed to do? It gave a clean starting point for new fans (like myself) to watch the show with a clean start. If anything I would think a movie (assuming they mean theatrical) will turn people off more than interest them. You pay to see a movie whereas on BBAa and the more proper way to see Dr. Who which is PBS it's already paid for.

I suppose it's the same grass is greener approach. Movies want to become TV shows and TV shows want to become movies.

by **Andrew Forbes** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:32 pm

mkiker2089 wrote:
Andrew Forbes wrote:
mkiker2089 wrote:What do they hope to gain from this?

An audience that is too daunted by a massive, established universe to invest in the show?

Isn't that what the reboot was supposed to do? It gave a clean starting point for new fans (like myself) to watch the show with a clean start. If anything I would think a movie (assuming they mean theatrical) will turn people off more than interest them. You pay to see a movie whereas on BBAa and the more proper way to see Dr. Who which is PBS it's already paid for.

I suppose it's the same grass is greener approach. Movies want to become TV shows and TV shows want to become movies.

Yeah, but it's only several years after the series reboot that Doctor Who has really crept into the mainstream, if it has at all. There are lots of dollars out there waiting to be shoveled in.

Also, I have no idea what the highlighted sentence means.

by **mavrach** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:40 pm

It's been my experience, from watching since Eccleston's Doctor at least, that Doctor Who standalone episodes tend to be fluff that isn't the same quality as the main series.' Each of the Christmas specials as well as the four Tennant specials were all much weaker than the rest, and if I'd started with those instead I probably wouldn't have proceeded with the main show. Hopefully this movie would reach higher.

by **mkiker2089** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:16 pm

Andrew Forbes wrote:
mkiker2089 wrote:
Andrew Forbes wrote:
mkiker2089 wrote:What do they hope to gain from this?

An audience that is too daunted by a massive, established universe to invest in the show?

Isn't that what the reboot was supposed to do? It gave a clean starting point for new fans (like myself) to watch the show with a clean start. If anything I would think a movie (assuming they mean theatrical) will turn people off more than interest them. You pay to see a movie whereas on BBAa and the more proper way to see Dr. Who which is PBS it's already paid for.

I suppose it's the same grass is greener approach. Movies want to become TV shows and TV shows want to become movies.

Yeah, but it's only several years after the series reboot that Doctor Who has really crept into the mainstream, if it has at all. There are lots of dollars out there waiting to be shoveled in.

Also, I have no idea what the highlighted sentence means.

BBC America and PBS are free, well already paid for, so if the show comes on people will watch it with less hesitation. At the theatre you have to pay a ticket price so people will be reluctant to take a chance on the unknown. My point is that at the theatre they will only get people who are either already fans or are turned on by the trailer. In either event it's people that should already be watching the show.

I hope it's done well. I'm not sold, but it's too early to judge. I would feel better if they kept the same cannon however.

by **HGervais** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:18 pm

BBC America is not free, it's part of a cable or satellite package you pay for.

Because you are making a movie, trying to start a film franchise, asking people to pay for something at a box office is why you start at ground level with a reboot. People may be more familiar now with Doctor Who than in decades past but certainly not to the level that a David Tennant or Matt Smith is going to drive the kind of crowds into a cinema that a film franchise needs, again the need for starting from scratch. The strongest image the show has with the public is probably the outline of the police box and not with a particular actor in the role of the Doctor.
As for canon, you have a TV series that is coming up on 50 years old that has rewritten and contradicted it's own continuity several times over, do you really think a movie crowd walking into it for the first time is supposed to be aware of all those things? Are all the various novels & comic strips canon? Are all the Big Finish audios canon? All that adds up to probably needing to start it off with a reboot. Which isn't to say I don't want to see a multi-Doctor story using Doctors 8, 9, 10, & 11 or a movie with Matt Smith. I do and I say these things as a a 35 year fan of the show but if you are going to invest 80 to 120 million dollars on a film franchise, and given the relationship domestically between BBC America & Warner you have to kind of think this is viewed a potential franchise that replaces the Harry Potter movies on the schedule, you kind of have to start fresh. As a business decision it is the most pragmatic way of approaching it.

by **mkiker2089** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:28 pm

What will this do to the show and Matt Smith?

by **HGervais** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:56 pm

Probably nothing or maybe this comes out after the 50th anniversary year and it quite literally restarts the franchise. I have no clue. There were two movies made in the 1960s that featured Peter Cushing as a character named Doctor Who and it didn't impact the show proper in the least. You can do one while still doing the other.
If you are doing a movie for the 50th anniversary, then yeah I think you do a love letter to the fans and it stars Matt Smith but if you are doing a movie that wants to begin a film franchise and is being aimed at a world audience, I don't know how you do it without starting from scratch.

by **molly1216** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:33 am

true confession.....i despise the idea of multiple actors playing the same character
james bond, doctor who, batman ..i find it all very disturbing.
i'd rather see a new face and attach a new name to it.
only with the revival of Doctor Who did i get right with it.

now you want to give the Doctor still another face (which by the way messes up the canon) just to put it on the big screen
i'm annoyed more than anything.

by **mkiker2089** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:17 am

molly1216 wrote:true confession.....i despise the idea of multiple actors playing the same character
james bond, doctor who, batman ..i find it all very disturbing.
i'd rather see a new face and attach a new name to it.
only with the revival of Doctor Who did i get right with it.

now you want to give the Doctor still another face (which by the way messes up the canon) just to put it on the big screen
i'm annoyed more than anything.

At least someone feels like I do.

Here's my thing, ok the show changes stories and such. I'm ok with that. I'm not a real bean counter, I know fiction has to play fast and loose sometimes. However that's for each show as it happens. The movie seems wrong because it's going to happen with the show. Just as with other movie / show crossovers if they don't have the same cast then they aren't done at the same time. I can't think of an example of a show / movie crossover with a different cast that worked concurrently.

I just can't shake the gut feeling that most people are going to feel like Molly and I. They are going to wonder why Matt Smith was canned. Then again maybe they'll come up with something really clever to make us feel better.

by **HGervais** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:09 am

Doctor Who is different by design. The beauty of the series is that each Doctor has a shelf life and as an audience you know one day "your" Doctor is going to step away to be replaced by another actor with a completely different skill set & characterization for the show. I think it is one of the main reasons why the show and the character have for endured for so long. Long time fans of the show don't really sit around & wonder why a particular actor leaves, it is simply accepted that at some point the character is going to regenerate into someone else with the show becoming slightly different in the process. If you look at the history of the show the average Doctor only stays around for three seasons worth of stories with the only Doctor ever forced out & fired being Colin Baker aka The 6th Doctor aka Ole Sixy.
And again canon, what parts of canon do you follow? How much canon do you expect an audience coming in fresh to know? I get the complaints and for the most part, as a fan, I feel the same way. I want a big screen Doctor Who build for fans like me that incorporates stories & ideas from the show's rich heritage but taking off that fan hat I realize this project, if it moves forward, isn't being done for me or by me. It's a business decision. Casino Royale did huge business. Batman Begins did huge business. Star Trek did huge business. All those movies proved you can take an established franchise and make a new movie that brings in both long time fans and people walking into it for the first time. As a movie geared for a world audience, starting over is kind of a no-brainer. The main backlash will be in the UK and I don't quite know how Brits will react but if it's anything like the reaction in the US to the recent Star Trek movie, which I think is the closest cultural thing we have here that compares to how Doctor Who is viewed in the UK, they will probably be okay. Fans will bitch & moan but they are fans for a reason and they will still purchase their ticket. The curious thing to me continues to be how or indeed if this fits in with the Doctor Who series. Is this proposed film a way to totally restart the clock for the franchise? That is the question I want answered.

by **Kenneth Morgan** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:38 am

I'm somewhat wary about this one. It's not the idea of making a big-screen "Doctor Who" movie, or even of possibly bringing in a new actor as the Doctor. My problem is the notion of the producers apparent intention of retooling the set-up again, rather than simply branching off from the current continuity. For me it's not so much the idea of an alternate continuity (as has been noted, they've re-written the series' continuity several times), as it's the idea that they'll put together something that's not particularly good, or is so against the basic concept of the series that it's unrecognizable (sort of like the rejected ideas for the McGann movie).

I liked the Cushing movies because, while they were different, they were still enjoyable. I'll wait and see how this one turns out. Just as long as they don't use the Daleks; I think we need a moratorium on the lousy pepperpots for a while.

by **mavrach** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:49 am

When it boils down, Doctor Who just came up with a damn creative way to deal with the problem of its principal actor leaving the show. It turned a common problem into a strength. I'm sure they regretted casting an older actor in the lead as well.

There's a fan theory I like, that the name of James Bond is just a code name that is shared by multiple agents. But they're stuck if they want to keep making movies. Either Sean Connery had to leave for his career's sake, or he could've stayed the whole time and we'd have an 81-year old Bond at this point

But Bond & Who are both ongoing projects that had to adapt. Other rebooted franchises mostly died before getting reborn as new series. The Burton/Shumacher Batman series died after Batman & Robin, and there were previous incarnations that stood on their own.

by **Steve T Power** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:50 am

As someone who's a casual (at very best) fan of Who, I'd prefer a fresh film approach. Pull a Star Trek and tie clever winks into the old series - maybe this is the "last incarnation" of the Dr, which changes the game for him some, no?

One actor, three or four movies, independent enough of the series, and he dies at the end - thus ending the Doctor's long and storied life.

by **HGervais** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:52 am

mavrach wrote:When it boils down, Doctor Who just came up with a damn creative way to deal with the problem of its principal actor leaving the show. It turned a common problem into a strength. I'm sure they regretted casting an older actor in the lead as well.

i don't think they regretted it. Someone has to be first and within the initial framework of the series, plus the time period in which it was created, plus the casting an actor of some degree of note at the time...it probably made a lot of sense. And honestly, William Hartnell is a wonderful Doctor. No one involved had any clue the show was going to connect the way it did and if not for the Daleks making their first appearance in the second serial the show probably would not have lasted. I also can't imagine that anyone knew within a few years Hartnell would be suffering from dementia forcing his withdrawal from the series but to your point they did turn a weakness into the show's greatest strength. Change & rebirth are at the very heart(s) of what makes Doctor Who special.

by **Kenneth Morgan** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:10 am

HGervais wrote:
mavrach wrote:When it boils down, Doctor Who just came up with a damn creative way to deal with the problem of its principal actor leaving the show. It turned a common problem into a strength. I'm sure they regretted casting an older actor in the lead as well.

i don't think they regretted it. Someone has to be first and within the initial framework of the series, plus the time period in which it was created, plus the casting an actor of some degree of note at the time...it probably made a lot of sense. And honestly, William Hartnell is a wonderful Doctor. No one involved had any clue the show was going to connect the way it did and if not for the Daleks making their first appearance in the second serial the show probably would not have lasted. I also can't imagine that anyone knew within a few years Hartnell would be suffering from dementia forcing his withdrawal from the series but to your point they did turn a weakness into the show's greatest strength. Change & rebirth are at the very heart(s) of what makes Doctor Who special.

Actually, this brings up an interesting idea. If you're going to recast the role for the movie, why not go back to having an older actor (or even actress!) play the role, rather than keep going for younger performers, as has been the case of late. I doubt the producers would try it, since it might detract from the box office take, but it would be interesting to see such an approach.

by **Andrew Forbes** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:46 am

$10 says Robert Pattinson.

by **HGervais** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:22 pm

In my own personal Doctor Who casting fantasy it would either be Bill Nighy or Brendon Gleeson. In a more realistic world I think it could easily be someone like Michael Sheen.

by **HGervais** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:30 pm

From Steven Moffat's Twitter feed:
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.
Oh meow.

by **mkiker2089** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:11 pm

HGervais wrote:From Steven Moffat's Twitter feed:
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.
Oh meow.

Any word on how he feels about the movie plans? It could be either a great boon to his ratings, or the BBC crapping on him. I hope it's a boon myself assuming they can do this well.

by **HGervais** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:18 pm

mkiker2089 wrote:
HGervais wrote:From Steven Moffat's Twitter feed:
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.
Oh meow.

Any word on how he feels about the movie plans? It could be either a great boon to his ratings, or the BBC crapping on him. I hope it's a boon myself assuming they can do this well.

Is that a serious post Marshall or did you not comprehend that Moffat's comments are in reference to the movie plans and dripping with sarcasm?

by **mkiker2089** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:22 pm

That's kind of what I though. Not having twitter I couldn't see if there were anymore to it. He's being a bit vague (in my opinion) but I know he probably has to. I'd like to see him go more on record. Then again I still have a gut feeling this movie thing is a bad idea. I'd rather the resurrected some other franchise. I can't think of anything off hand, but something that isn't in current production.

by **Kenneth Morgan** » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:26 pm

Kenneth Morgan wrote:
HGervais wrote:
mavrach wrote:When it boils down, Doctor Who just came up with a damn creative way to deal with the problem of its principal actor leaving the show. It turned a common problem into a strength. I'm sure they regretted casting an older actor in the lead as well.

i don't think they regretted it. Someone has to be first and within the initial framework of the series, plus the time period in which it was created, plus the casting an actor of some degree of note at the time...it probably made a lot of sense. And honestly, William Hartnell is a wonderful Doctor. No one involved had any clue the show was going to connect the way it did and if not for the Daleks making their first appearance in the second serial the show probably would not have lasted. I also can't imagine that anyone knew within a few years Hartnell would be suffering from dementia forcing his withdrawal from the series but to your point they did turn a weakness into the show's greatest strength. Change & rebirth are at the very heart(s) of what makes Doctor Who special.

Actually, this brings up an interesting idea. If you're going to recast the role for the movie, why not go back to having an older actor (or even actress!) play the role, rather than keep going for younger performers, as has been the case of late. I doubt the producers would try it, since it might detract from the box office take, but it would be interesting to see such an approach.

Eh, who am I trying to kid? Shia LaBeouf's gonna pilot the TARDIS on the big screen. It's inevitable.

by **Andrew Forbes** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:32 am

HGervais wrote:In my own personal Doctor Who casting fantasy it would either be Bill Nighy or Brendon Gleeson. In a more realistic world I think it could easily be someone like Michael Sheen.

Bill Nighy could be phenomenal.

by **Kenneth Morgan** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:46 am

Andrew Forbes wrote:
HGervais wrote:In my own personal Doctor Who casting fantasy it would either be Bill Nighy or Brendon Gleeson. In a more realistic world I think it could easily be someone like Michael Sheen.

Bill Nighy could be phenomenal.

I agree with that. I saw him on "Masterpiece Theater" in "Page Eight" just a few days ago. He'd do a great job.

Now, if they really wanted to mess with people's heads and have a great sequel hook, they do a movie outside of series continuity with Bill Nighy as the Doctor. Then, at the end, he walks into the TARDIS and Matt Smith is standing by the console. Cue the WHOOOOSH as they start to wonder just who the real Doctor is.

Still, I just figure they'll go with box office and Shia LaBeouf.

by **HGervais** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:21 am

Kenneth Morgan wrote:Still, I just figure they'll go with box office and Shia LaBeouf.

We are talking about a potential film coming out in what, 2015? I doubt they would ever consider an American leading man as The Doctor but a British flavor of the month is possible. So who really knows who that will be in two years or so when they actually get down to casting? And I don't see them going too young, probably an actor in their early to mid 30s. The one thing about having Yates at the helm that comforts me a little is that through his time on the Harry Potter franchise he is locked in & aware of just about every Brit actor of note working. I feel pretty strongly that above everything else the lead is going to be well cast.

by **Steve T Power** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:34 am

HGervais wrote:
Kenneth Morgan wrote:Still, I just figure they'll go with box office and Shia LaBeouf.

We are talking about a potential film coming out in what, 2015? I doubt they would ever consider an American leading man as The Doctor but a British flavor of the month is possible. So who really knows who that will be in two years or so when they actually get down to casting? And I don't see them going too young, probably an actor in their early to mid 30s. The one thing about having Yates at the helm that comforts me a little is that through his time on the Harry Potter franchise he is locked in & aware of just about every Brit actor of note working. I feel pretty strongly that above everything else the lead is going to be well cast.

Michael Fassbinder is Doctor Who!

by **Burson_Fouch** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:28 pm

I believe Matt Smith has stated he would like to stick with Who through the 50th anniversary season in 2013 and then leave to pursue film roles.

Reading between the lines and noting that Smith didn't specify exactly that he wouldn't play the good doctor again, this raises the possibility that the series would continue and that Smith wouldn't be adverse to playing the Doctor as part of a movie franchise.

To me that would be a very interesting scenario and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If they do recast, another interesting scenario to consider is that I don't believe there has been any confirmation within the Who'verse that Hartnell's doctor was the first Doctor. Sure, within tv continuity Hartnell is Doctor #1, but that doesn't absolutely state that this was the first generation of the Doctor himself within the fictional universe.

Which would raise the possibilty that the movie could be an origin story.

by **HGervais** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:40 pm

Burson_Fouch wrote:If they do recast, another interesting scenario to consider is that I don't believe there has been any confirmation within the Who'verse that Hartnell's doctor was the first Doctor. Sure, within tv continuity Hartnell is Doctor #1, but that doesn't absolutely state that this was the first generation of the Doctor himself within the fictional universe.

The TV show may not have confirmed it but Doctor Who novels & Big Finish audio productions certainly have.

by **mkiker2089** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:47 pm

I think the TV show did confirm that Hartnell was number 1, but I can't think of specifics. It also gave the doctor a specific number of regenerations, which he has exceeded. I'm not nearly as up on my Who history as others however and can't recall the number.

by **HGervais** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:56 pm

mkiker2089 wrote:I think the TV show did confirm that Hartnell was number 1, but I can't think of specifics. It also gave the doctor a specific number of regenerations, which he has exceeded. I'm not nearly as up on my Who history as others however and can't recall the number.

Marshall, yes the show gave The Doctor a specific number of regenerations but no he has no exceeded it. By using the show's own continuity The Doctor has one more regeneration left. Unless you count The Doctor's appearance on The Sarah Jane Adventures where he was asked how many regenerations he has and he answered to the effect of an unlimited amount. I've been curious since the show's return when of indeed if they were going to deal with the regeneration issue. That we are having this discussion just speaks more forcefully that if there is to be a big screen version of the show, it makes a lot of sense to start from scratch. Again, not what I want to see but it probably is the best approach to take.

by **the5thghostbuster** » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:58 pm

mkiker2089 wrote:I think the TV show did confirm that Hartnell was number 1, but I can't think of specifics. It also gave the doctor a specific number of regenerations, which he has exceeded. I'm not nearly as up on my Who history as others however and can't recall the number.

It was confirmed in the Five Doctor's special, when one claims to be the first and "original."

by **Kenneth Morgan** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:21 am

Hartnell's Doctor was the first, and he can regenerate 12 times, thus he has 13 lives.

Regarding the latter, though, they've alluded to any number of ways to get past that limitation, so the show doesn't necessarily have to stop when Doctor 13 decides to leave.

(Okay, I can just see someone posting, "Doctor 13? Olivia Wilde IS the Doctor!")

by **mkiker2089** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:26 am

The Master exceeded his number so it's possible. Then you have the heart of the Tardis which can do pretty much anything, so regenerations isn't really an issue that a good writer couldn't shoot through. I'm a hack at best and I could write a way around it, so they should have something really clever in the works.

As far as the next Doctor I submit one thing to consider. The last time the US and UK got together we saw Eric Roberts as The Master. Anything could happen.

by **mavrach** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:37 am

The regeneration count I think was just an arbitrary high number chosen a long time ago, by writers who never believed the show would still be happening 50 years later. They might as well have said that the Doctor can regenerate a bajillion times, what were the odds that they'd actually hit that number?

They are going to write around it. They'll have a throwaway line or subplot about the Doctor gaining additional lives. Or they'll retcon something, and frankly that will likely be unsatisfying because it's just an excuse to keep the show going.

They'd probably just glance over the max regeneration count and forget they said anything, if us fans weren't as geeky as we are, focusing on a line of dialogue spoken decades ago. Am I correct on this? Either way, the show rocks and the max regen thing isn't a factor as far as I'm concerned.

by **mkiker2089** » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:57 am

Sometimes I think shows are better off just ignoring errors than making elaborate excuses. The Klingon issue is the prototype to me. If they had just left it alone people would have gotten over the fact that they changed apperance. Instead they tried to explain it, which created plot loopholes (how did we lose the knowledge that they had changed for example). That then snowballed into entire subplots about Klingon genetic manipulation that made no sense given the fact that TOS is set years after Enterprise.

Just like some have suggested that Bond be a code name to explain why the face changed. That would introduce problems that I'd rather not deal with.

The Doctor should just say the Tardis preserved him, or that the limit was law and not physical, something simple like that and move on quickly if you ask me. Heck, maybe the rebirth of the universe via the Pandorica reset his timer.

by **HGervais** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:38 am

Moffat speaks & clarifies Doctor Who movie position and in the process, I think anyway, makes what's happening a little less clear.

by **mkiker2089** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:18 am

HGervais wrote:Moffat speaks & clarifies Doctor Who movie position and in the process, I think anyway, makes what's happening a little less clear.

So has something changed in the last few weeks that we aren't told about because that's not what the director said to Variety. I get the feeling this is going to get ugly. A battle for Who kind of like Sony's attempt to steal James Bond.

The Jury Room

Who is online