back to article Harry Potter director takes on Doctor Who movie

Boy wizard director David Yates is planning to take Doctor Who onto the big screen in conjunction with the BBC. Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films, has told Variety that he's about to start developing a Doctor Who movie with Jane Tranter, the head of LA-based BBC Worldwide Productions. Tranter was the BBC's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Super Fast Jellyfish
    Holmes

    Who?

    I think your take on who would make the best Doctor depends on which one you grew up with. For me early Tom Baker (so many classics - Talons of Weng Chiang or Pyramids of Mars to name just two but that's as much to the writing as the acting). However to draw in the audiences it would have to take into account the rebooted series. But please spare me the Daleks - at least the fat New ones.

    Its more likely to be like the original film (which at least took itself seriously unlike the sequel), which isn't a problem if it plays a little with the canon to get people who've never seen the TV series in (maybe then they'll watch the tv series - unlikely tho', they're more likely to get confused).

    So, famous-ish actor but with no current link to Dr Who. Not too young so adults would also go not just kids and teens (not sure how you'd make it poplar with the non-tween age group (and no it doesn't need gratuitousness sex to get there). Obvious then, Russell Crowe.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      "famous-ish actor but with no current link to Dr Who"

      Actually that's one of the places I see a potential problem. Who has usually got away without using big name actors in the main role. If they do use a big name I fear that the film will become a vehicle for that actor rather than a Doctor Who film. And they're always going to go for a name in this sort of film because they wan't the box office draw that comes with it. Particularly in regions where the Who brand is not going to provide that draw on its own.

      Look at what happened when they put Ecclestone in the role. Quite a name in the UK with a reputation for playing dour agressive notherners. And how did he play it? As a dour agressive northerner with a touch of Bruce Willis' vest and a horribly clashing overlay of whimsy. IOW an Ecclestone vehicle with only the slightest nod to what had gone before. Indeed some have suggested that Eccleston was using the series to try to make a name for himself as more of a blockbuster actor. Whatever the cause Chris was not a convincing Who.

      Tennant was more of a known name than other Doctors, but he wasn't a big star and at least he had something of a history of playing eccentrics that suited him to the Doctor. Go right back to Campbell in Takin' Over the Asylum. So even though Who with the team of RTD, Tranter and Tennant was always going to be something of a Tennant vehicle at least Tennants previous character roles would have suited the Doctor. Yes there was too much emotion in the character, but that's RTD for you. I just felt that he played it a little too much Casanova, but overall it was pretty good.

      Given the working relationship between Tennant and Tranter I have a horrible feeling that they might want to put Tennant back in the role. Not that I don't like Tennant, I do, but I feel that doing that would damage the brand as it would weaken the position of whoever happens to be the TV Doctor by the time the film is released.

  2. Lamont Cranston

    Either their going to reboot Doctor Who,

    thus throwing all the established (dis)continuity out of the window, or they could pick up where the last film left off.

    I vote for option B, and would love to see Paul McGann returned to the role.

    1. Grease Monkey Silver badge

      Erm, the McGann thing wasn't a film per se. It was supposedly a feature length episode with an option on a new series to follow. In light of how bloody terrible it was I was very glad the option was not taken up.

      Likewise the first two films were disasters. Quite appart from their being terrible films, the whole "reimagining" was nonsense. The idea of the lead character being a human being who happened to be a Doctor who's surname was Who was truly ridiculous.

      I actually think the idea of the proposed film is fundamentally flawed. It could have worked back in 2004 before the new Who came along, but we are now six series back in. The series is firmly established in the public consciousness. Any film that is not part of the canon will no doubt be seen as disapointing by fans of the series. And any fans who are introduced to the series by the film will no doubt find the series disappointing as it will have little connection with the film. As such it can only dilute the brand.

      Unfortunately I don't see anybody having any reason to make this film other than trying to make money in the short term. Just because somebody wants to pay for the movie rights that doesn't mean the BBC should sell them - they need to think of the long term strengh of the brand rather than making a quick buck. Badly managed something like this could harm the brand and kill the goose that laid the egg in the first place.

      Likewise just because Who is a huge hit on British TV and a minor hit elsewhere that does not mean it's popularity will translate into big cinema audiences. Obviously any project like this is going to end up being big budget. There's no way they can take it back to the sparseness of the sixties given the way the series has developed. Yes there have been lower budget episodes in the new who, but much as I loved Blink I don't see that sort of story being a big box office draw. Any Doctor Who film these days will be big on action, effects and budget. As such it's going to have to have big audiences to make any money. TBH, much as I love the Doctor old and new (with the exception of the 7th and 8th Doctors) I can't see it doing big box office. And again I don't think that would be good for the brand.

  3. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    "Tranter was the BBC's controller of fiction between 2006 and 2008, so she oversaw much of the television reboot of Doctor Who under Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat."

    Since Who came back in 2005 and must have been in the pipeline for at least a year before that the above sentence makes no sense. IOW the controller of fiction for the making of the 2005 and 2006 series (or at least the commissioning and writing of the 2006 series) was not Tranter. I would have said that by the time Tranter took that particular seat the reboot was pretty much complete.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well...

    For a name that is big in America, and the UK, how about Orlando Bloom, I think he could be quite believeabe as a regenerated doctor, especially if this is a start from scratch, which I assume means going back to the end of the original series, rather than just re-making Dr Who and the Daleks, or Daleks 2150AD...

    Just a few thoughs :)

  5. JesterMedia

    Surely, given the Director's previous it's got to be a new 'grown-up' vehicle for Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson or Rupert Ginge? Emma Watson as the Doctor with the Ginger one as her assistant and Daniel Radcliffe playing the voice of K9. How could it fail to be box office Gold?

  6. prolificjones
    Happy

    Bill Bailey should be the new Doctor... hands down

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.