Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctor Who To Become Hollywood Feature Film

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the oh-you-mean-with-michael-j-fox dept.

Movies 357

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."

cancel ×

357 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lol (5, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062272)

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.

Re:Lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062310)

Q: What do you call 10,000 niggers buried up to their necks in sand?

A: Afro-Turf ... or Not Enough Sand!

Re:Lol (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062368)

You Brits don't have a thing to worry about. Hollywood will use cheap CGI and how does Eddie Murphy as Doctor Who sound?

Re:Lol (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062604)

I've seen I Spy. It sounds just like something Hollywood would do. Avoid at all costs.

it started in 2005 (4, Interesting)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062642)

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.

Re:it started in 2005 (-1, Flamebait)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062910)

I just remind myself this isn't Dr Who, it's Han Solo with a Time Machine and a British accent.

Oh, I see. What you mean is that they actually made it watchable. Yeah. Big mistake, that.

Re:it started in 2005 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062950)

They finally added River so The Doctor could have a legitimate romantic interest without having to constantly work in the romantic tension with his companion. Personally I thought the tension was a legitimate character element, but it does get tired after a while.

As for turnover, Tennant had a longer tenure than everyone except Tom Baker. What I'm wondering is that since the Doctor seems to be getting more cracked every incarnation, I wonder who they're going to get to top Smith.

Re:Lol (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062780)

"Hollywood will use cheap CGI and how does Eddie Murphy as Doctor Who sound?"

To be honest? Still better than how "The Avengers" turned out a few years ago...

Re:Lol (5, Funny)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062792)

Could be worse. Could be directed by Michael Bay and featuring Shia LaBeouf as Dr. Who.

I'll take cheap CGI.

Re:Lol (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062802)

After all, look at how great they did with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , staying true to the original book.

Re:Lol (5, Interesting)

cygnwolf (601176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062964)

I can't decide if you're being sarcastic or not, but in either case, Douglass Adams was heavily involved in writing the screenplay for the movie and stated on numerous occasions he had no intention of making any two incarnations of the Guide be the same.

Re:Lol (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062562)

I've stopped watching Who lately because it's already been spoiled by Hollywood stylings. The last few episodes I watched were the one with Van Gogh, the one with the girl who's actually dead and in software-only, and the zombie-like alien old people episode. All of them had just really sickening dramatics. I believe the library one had two or three different "Oh no, is the Doctor dead?" scenes in it where a few minutes were spent with crying out and the emotional cue music turned up. Then, the Van Gogh episode involved taking a man with mental instabilities and introducing him to time travel and seeing people in the future reacting to his works while horrifically third generation rip-off of Coldplay or Travis played extremely loudly on the soundtrack. Ever think introducing a man to the future, and quite possibly showing him works he hasn't yet made, could perhaps lead to his suicide? But no, it was a thoroughly insight-less opportunity to play the heartstrings. Even the goddamn zombie episode spent much of its time focusing on whether the two side characters were in love or not.
 
After seeing those episodes, among others, I watched an episode where Pertwee's doctor has his companion stay behind. There were a couple of looks by the doctor before he left on his own. No soap opera modern rock soundtrack bullshit, no crying out, no soap opera bullshit. I did like the first season of Tennant, but what I've seen of what's after is just utter dreck. Grey's Anatomy is less manipulative.

Re:Lol (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062586)

You're right, and -- bonus -- we pay for the abuse. I'm thinking unless something truly amazing happens, I'll be avoiding this.

Re:Lol (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062630)

There have been a few good movies that started out as TV shows... Star Trek II of course, and... er... Transformers? The cartoon one from the 80s, not the new ones...

Yeah, okay, odds are about 1,000,000:1 of it not sucking.

Hollywood version ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062694)

Dr. Who (I meant 'Dr." NOT Doctor) will carry a sonic gun, his companion with have big tits, he will use movie martial arts, and he will solve problems with brute force and cynicism - not with the flair of outsmarting his opponents and making them use their brute force against themselves. ANd if they caste Shia LaBeouf as The Doctor, I will start an Occupy Hollywood movement.

That's what is so awesome about Doctor Who to this American - he uses his brains to defeat the bad guys and does it with flair.

Re:Hollywood version ... (2)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062764)

You had me at "big tits".

Re:Lol (0)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062750)

There was one made some time ago (1996?) The visual effects were quality as they would be, but having The Master just spitting at people like the lizards in V didn't really fit into his character.

Shepperton Studios in London did do Dr Who movies in the 1960's. Dr Who and the Daleks take the battle to Skaro, and Daleks: Invasion Earth with London having been taken over, and robotoizing the local population in 2150.

Perhaps they should try doing something simple like updating one of the series stories like "The Seeds of Doom". That one had people making contact with seed pods and being turning into walking pod-releasing trees in an Aliens/The Thing style.

Re:Lol (4, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062864)

I prefer the original series, "Inspector Spacetime."

Re:Lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062948)

How bout just ignoring the movie and getting on with your life?

I'm sorry (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062274)

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...

Re:I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062444)

I am not a Harry Potter fan at all, I think the stories are the kind of mindless, macguffin driven drivel that make people not take fantasy seriously. That being said, Yates direction has been pretty impressive. I can't really sit through a whole movie, but the stories are coherently constructed, he gets good performances out of mediocre actors, and the movies definitely have that difficult to describe "cohesive essence" that is the hallmark of good direction. I wouldn't really spend a whole lot of time worrying about what he'll do with Doctor Who though, it is extremely rare in Hollywood for a director to be attached to an existing property this early in preproduction and actually stick with it all the way through to production.

Re:I'm sorry (3, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062470)

Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie? The bigger issue is themes. The potter themes are pretty simple. The Who themes are more bipolar--the deep loss and the brilliant moment. The writers sometimes do a good job with this. The themes are good enough, though, that you could do it very well. My guess is it will be better than the last horrible attempt, but still trying to serve a non-who and a who audience, which just doesn't work. You need to serve a who audience in a way which neither leaves everyone else in the dark nor wastes ridiculous time on backstory.

Re:I'm sorry (1)

Whalou (721698) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062564)

Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie?

From TFS:

Variety reports that David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films [...]

So no, not the third movie.

Re:I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062818)

The fourth then. Does it matter? Fact is, the new movies are good, the older ones were crap.

Re:I'm sorry (3, Funny)

Dusty101 (765661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062550)

J.K. Rowling was asked to write an episode of Doctor Who a few years ago, but she said she was too busy finishing the last of the Harry Potter books at the time.

And I like breakfast burritos: probably the greatest North American invention of all time!

Re:I'm sorry (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062616)

Both, probably.

yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062278)

If the series is kept fresh, with a James Bond style of movie, I am all for this. I just hope the TV show continues, and this/these are just story arcs.

Re:yes! (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062804)

So... Rowen Atkinson or Johnny Depp as the Doctor?

oh god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062294)

as an American(aka leader of the world), i do not want this to happen. The only thing brits are good at is television. between top gear and doctor who, they blow our shit out of the water. Hollywood will shit on this project.

Re:oh god (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062832)

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.

"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (5, Funny)

Leuf (918654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062302)

Yes, we wouldn't want to risk sexualizing Amy Pond.

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062356)

Yes, we wouldn't want to risk sexualizing Amy Pond.

I'll be in my bunk. ;-)

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (1)

planimal (2454610) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062358)

forget amy pond. rose was where it was at. and by it i mean my genitals

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062768)

Rose? Are you really saying you'd take a smoking hot blonde who has never been hardened by working in the sex industry over a ... Well, a smoking hot read-head who's only real flaw is a severe centurion fetish? You're missing the real option - "The three companions" (Martha Jones for the trifecta)

But Ghod forbid that this companion business should in any way be sexualised. It's not like all those sixties and seventies and eighties companions included any hot babes.

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063008)

But Ghod forbid that this companion business should in any way be sexualised. It's not like all those sixties and seventies and eighties companions included any hot babes.

Mmmmm, Nissa. Yummm.....

And Leila -- shall I kill him now?

And Sarah Jane. Always Sarah Jane.

Please Hollywood, realize that the US market doesn't support Dr. Who and drop the project. The US TV version had what little success it had only because US Whovians didn't realize how bad a US adaptation would be and they watched it for free on the telly, even when it truly was "a penguin on the telly" level of quality.

Of course, if they make it in 3-D, I'd watch it twice.

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062360)

Exactly, I was thinking they did enough of that in the last season (which I strongly disliked, BTW).

Re:"The sexualisation of the lead characters" (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062600)

Breaking news! Role of Dr. Who to be played by Robert "Footface" Pattinson.

Steven Moffat's reply (5, Informative)

tuffy (10202) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062312)

Re:Steven Moffat's reply (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062558)

In other words, there's no news here. I'm actually a little relieved.

DO NOT WANT! (4, Insightful)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062322)

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?

Re:DO NOT WANT! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062594)

So don't watch it. Gee, that was hard.

Because the last Doctor Who movie was great... (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062332)

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.

Re:Because the last Doctor Who movie was great... (4, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062418)

Please don't blame Canada for that movie. We didn't write it, we didn't direct it, we didn't produce it. We just provided facilities and most of the cast and crew, not the creative team that actually made the film.

Re:Because the last Doctor Who movie was great... (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062824)

Please don't blame Canada for that movie. We didn't write it, we didn't direct it, we didn't produce it. We just provided facilities and most of the cast and crew, not the creative team that actually made the film.

You're right- it was basically made in Canada around the same time that a lot of US TV series were being made in Canada for reasons of cost- it was still made by a US company with the US market in mind.

They compromised it a lot to appeal to the Americans and it still didn't succeed- America is such a big market that they're used to getting stuff that panders specifically do them, and IMHO it's clear that they will never be able to make Doctor Who appeal to a *mainstream* (i.e. non-"cult") US mass audience without totally losing what makes it Doctor Who.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation actually co-funded the first few new series of Doctor Who, but (apparently) didn't stick their noses in too much.

Re:Because the last Doctor Who movie was great... (2, Informative)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062776)

No Dr Who movie has really been Dr Who. I mean the Cushing movies he was an Earth born inventor with the last name Who, and this was before all the copyright BS really hit the fan. In fact any movie with Bernard Cribbins in it is not really a valid movie.

Doctor Who: The Movie, was a weakly veiled attempt at a reboot pilot episode, and for the love of all that is holy, it had Eric "Best of the Best" Roberts as the Master...such a bad decision. It was obviously targetted at the American audience.

This next one, I have very little hope for. In my opinion Dr. Who is a live action cartoon strip, one I grew up with (Baker years). Any movie will just seem like a glorified Christmas special, and really I wish they would stop those.

Do not want! (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062344)

The last thing Doctor Who needs is the Hollywood treatment. Please tell me this is a bad dream.

Re:Do not want! (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062842)

No what's really a bad dream is the characters dying, and then "oh they're not *really* dead". Or are they? Oh they are, kind of. Do we even care anymore?
Like that previous slashdot story said, death should be a very rare occasion for important characters, and not used as a gimmick in almost every episode.

We saw what it did to Miracle Day (4, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062346)

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.

Re:We saw what it did to Miracle Day (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062422)

"Take your stinking paws off it, you damn dirty producer!"

Re:We saw what it did to Miracle Day (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062808)

It's probably more a case of "every other movie has these effects included, so we have to do the same".

So they end up trying to weave a plot line around a fixed set of visual effects current at the time.

Re:We saw what it did to Miracle Day (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062814)

Miracle Day was still better than the first two seasons of Torchwood. WTF was that?!?

Re:We saw what it did to Miracle Day (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062884)

The problem with Miracle Day was that they had a great idea for a British TV series and tried to turn it into a US series, so they had to add some filler episodes. The original draft was for six episodes, as I recall. The US network said that they couldn't do a series that short, so they extended it to ten. That just doesn't work. You can't take a story and then stretch it out to be twice as long. The one thing that might have worked was doing 5 hour-long episodes for the UK and showing them as 10 45-minute episodes in the USA (30 minutes, plus the obligatory recap because American TV viewers seem unable to remember what happened last week, plus adverts). If they'd started from scratch with the aim to make a ten-episode series, it might have worked.

Just Say No (5, Insightful)

jIyajbe (662197) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062362)

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.

Re:Just Say No (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062502)

Getting rid of that God-awful campiness can only be a good thing. Hopefully, they'll also get rid of all the annoying British accents so I can understand what the fuck they're saying.

Re:Just Say No (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062602)

Sorry about that. You're supposed to hear it in an American accent but the translation circuit's been a bit on the fritz.

Re:Just Say No (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062840)

Get Bruce Willis and Fran Drescher to do the voice overs?

Re:Just Say No (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062822)

Exactly!

I haven't watched Doctor Who since Tom Bakker played the good Doctor (although that has more to do with time and priorities than quibbles with the quality of the show). What I loved about Doctor Who was that it was campy, it was hokey...but it didn't take itself too seriously and as a result, it was fun. Hollywood has an entirely different feel than the Doctor Who. I can't help but fear that Hollywood will try to make it too modern, hip, sexy, trendy...and will lose the essence of what made Doctor Who so enjoyable as a result.

Re:Just Say No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062956)

Well... there would be no harm if they could make a slightly longer Christmas Special or any double episode and call it a movie. I just hope they don't turn it into a Transformers thing full of Daleks, Cybermen & Co. It will be interesting to know if we're going to have two different Doctors, movie and TV serial, and maybe two different continuities or only one actor for both. Star Trek movies always arrived after the end of the TV serial, right?

Hell , yah. (1)

UziBeatle (695886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062386)

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.

 

Re:Hell , yah. (4, Funny)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062434)

Tom Baker??? Fuck that. The obvious and only choice for a Hollywood version: Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Re:Hell , yah. (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062438)

With Tom Baker brought back in full youth and form via the miracle of CGI.

I wish. More likely, some 25-year-old pretty boy who walked straight out of an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog and can't act his way out of a wet paper bag.

Re:Hell , yah. (1, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062874)

Nah they'll cast Ashton Kutcher. I mean, the guy is going to be looking for a job soon anyway.

Re:Hell , yah. (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063000)

Justin Bieber?

HHGTTG (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062400)

It'll be as just as good as Hitchhiker's Guide!

"inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters" (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062408)

Is this some sort of joke? The new Dr. Who already felt like a god awful soap opera revolving around Rose's love for the Doctor.

Russel Davies ruined Dr. Who. If only we could bring back Terry Nation.

Re:"inevitable sexualisation of the lead character (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062974)

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.

Everyone, relax (5, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062416)

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 ).

Re:Everyone, relax (4, Insightful)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062592)

Well- take a look at the last Star Trek movie (and the next one coming out) - that was not designed for Star Trek fans.

It was written for the Non-Star Trek fans. (Heck, my wife hates Star Trek but enjoyed that movie).

Hollywood knows the real Dr. Who fans will watch anyway out of curiosity- but they will write it for those who are not fans... just like the last Star Trek.

Win/win for Hollywood.

Re:Everyone, relax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062596)

You have to be from the US. In the UK, everyone knows about Doctor Who...

Re:Everyone, relax (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062618)

Yup. And hollywood is in the US, and it's arguably it's largest market, hence my US-centric response.

Re:Everyone, relax (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062786)

Not even close. Not any more. Hollywood loves special-effects-heavy extravaganzas because they require little to no translation to be sold in foreign markets.

Re:Everyone, relax (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062638)

Wait you think Hollywood producers actually care what the fans of the original think when they remake? How many people who liked Douglas Adam's books thought positive things about the movie? How many DBZ fans were happy with the movie? Heck even when it's the same creator of the original they don't care about what the fans of the original think, just ask George Lucas. Hollywood is about taking an idea, dumbing it down low enough that the fans of jersey shore can follow it, and targetting it towards the largest possible group of people with money. They know that the fans of the origional are 1. an inconsequential number (Generally less then 5-10% of the people who will see it if they market it to idiots). and 2. Half of them are going to pay to see it anyway even if it is awful.

Re:Everyone, relax (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062726)

I dunno. I always considered a Hollywood movie adaptation the death knell for a tv series. Consider the following list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs [wikipedia.org] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_television_programs [wikipedia.org] . Most of those movies were made at or after the end of the series. I don't think it's because the tv series became stale, but rather that movie-fying something changes the criteria by which it is enjoyed. I find it difficult to articulate how it changes, Probably because the movie ends up being a capstone and anything after is relegated to the epilogue.

Trailer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062454)

http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20100702

Doctor Who Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062474)

If Matthew Jacobs is writing the screen play, just kill me now.

The only Yates I want near Dr. Who... (1)

Psmylie (169236) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062476)

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.

Hugh Laurie (5, Interesting)

invid (163714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062520)

I would only watch it if Hugh Laurie played the Doctor.

Re:Hugh Laurie (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062782)

Thats might qactually be interesting to see....I could buy him as the Doctor.

The biggest problem, is if they screw with the known rules of the Dr Who universe, and what happens with the TV series in all of this?

Yeah, because that worked out so good before (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062526)

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.

already ruined (5, Funny)

Deadplant (212273) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062530)

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.

Re:already ruined (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062870)

This is true. I would have lost respect for Doctor Who with that episode, if I thought they were trying to do something respectful. They deliberately throw in trite shit like that to make it more kid friendly. Ignore those episodes and focus on the good ones.

I Doubt It'll Make The Translation (1)

RapidEye (322253) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062534)

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

It could work (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062536)

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.

Re:It could work (4, Insightful)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062652)

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that Matt Smith was chosen for sex appeal? I highly doubt there are many women who would ooooh and ahhh over Matt Smith on the streets... those that would- only because he is famous. In Matt Smith they picked the ugliest man possible... but, I personally think he is a fantastic actor and plays the part well. Probably the best recent doctor.

Third, in the latest incarnation there's already sexual chemistry between the Doctor and his companion.

Not just his companion- but several other human's- including Queen Bess- and River Song.

"Radical Transformation" (2)

Froobly (206960) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062556)

"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?

Two words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062576)

Uwe Boll

dr kutcher (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062650)

i am going to have nightmares for months now of Ashton Kutcher as the Dr. although Charlie Sheen could easily play the master. :-P

Sexualization? (4, Funny)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062656)

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 [cad-comic.com]

My predictions... (1)

brennanw (5761) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062662)

... 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.

I'd watch it (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062676)

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.

WTF BBC? (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062686)

I have been subjected to numerous lectures about why the BBC is utterly superior because it's not profit-motivated. Now, here they are, selling out one of their cultural treasures for cash. What, they don't know what Hollywood will do to Dr. Who? They know for sure. The BBC is nothing if not cynical about Americans in general, Hollywood specifically. So WTF BBC? Sounds like a 1%-er to me.

I can hear the doctor now (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062698)

Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.
Anyway. This better not suck.

There was already an american Doctor Who movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062708)

And ...it was shite. No surprise there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(1996_film) [wikipedia.org]

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062770)

See the dreck that was "Torchwood: Miracle Day" -- I know, I know: not a hollywood feature, but it's "Americanization" TOTALLY SUCKED!!

Leave well enough alone.

What's the big deal? (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062838)

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.

We must protest this.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062850)

Fight back guys! #OccupyTardis (don't worry, there's room for everyone...)

Engage Emergency Temporal Shift (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062894)

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!

Hardly 'great television' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062918)

Who is entertaining, without question. But the BBC is as politically correct as the DNC, and Who needs a Hartwell instead of a Smith.

I'll say it again... Hollywood is out of ideas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062958)

Tin Tin... total crap. Now this?

I look forward to the Hollywood remake of the Flumps. Pootle in Hi Def 3d will be AWESOME. And of course, Willow The Whisp and The Magic Roundabout!

Who said anything about Hollywood ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063018)

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 [pinewoodgroup.com] or Leavesden [wikipedia.org] -- and thus hopefully avoid Americanisation, which would ruin it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>