Who should play Dr Who?
Benedict Cumberbatch of course.
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 …
He's actually British and already plays a Know-it-all doctor on TV?
Plus he might actually help draw in people who aren't dr. who fans already. (like Downey Jr. or Clooney would also do, but without pissing off Dr Who fans or ruining the movie.
Jonny Depp is a pretty good actor too, certainly passible brit accent in Sleepy Hollow and Sweeny Todd....
"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," Yates said.
erm, i thought JK rowling wrote them, and they were very closely rewritten for the films, she also overlooked much of the production in fear the yanks wouldnt make HP some high school karate champion jock.
slightly tweaking someone else's script is a fair bit different from writing something original yourself.
I'm a Yankee, but I've been a BIG Doctor Who fan since the mid 1970's. I've watched every episode at least once or more, so I think a Blighty actor would be most appropriate. My preference would be to keep in sync with current TV versions and use Matt Smith (who I think has been really great), but David Tennant would not be remiss - although I think that the Doctor's daughter should make a reappearance! I've certainly been intrigued with the possibility of a "time line" featuring her! :-)
They don't really have anymore doctors left, I think we've been technically at eleven for awhile now, and we should have only ever been at 10 (10 regenerations), so unless they segue into why there can be more than 10 from the TV series, it will be as lame as the 1996 movie.
So for me it's Tennant, or the daughter. Or Smith, but I worry they won't spend enough on it, if it is only ever going to be a TV-movie, and that's what it would be seen as if they use Smith. I like Smith, a lot better than Clooney though. BTW, I'm a Yankee, but Doctor Who is and always should be British.
So I'd hate to see any actor take the blame. I just hope this doesn't end up as a cross between the 1996 TV movie and Peter Cushing's "Dr. Who and the Daleks".
It also makes me wonder about the future of the TV show. The timing on this would certainly put it past the 50th anniversary, and Matt Smith's run on the show. End the series and relaunch it as a movie franchise? The BBC Worldwide will still make a fortune on licensing and merchandise.
In terms of a "fun" choice, what about Hugh Laurie? I doubt he'd do it, but it might work.
How about a script from pre-1963 first episode? Just what was the doctor locked up for? -- how did he steal a TARDIS? -- what did William Hartnell Doctor look like when he was younger? There's presumably scope there for a new story without conflicting with all the TV episodes. It's probably already explained in the books, but as Vic and Bob say, there's no point reading a book cos if it's any good it'll be made into a film.
Either that or the Master takes a TARDIS back in time, disguises it as a giant mining ship, kills Kirk's father and destroys Vulcan.
I am a big fan of the fantasy genre and read many books and play a variety of videogames all set in fantasy environments. However, I have been subjected to all the Harry Potter movies, and every single one of them as been a pile of unmitigated, steaming sh....ermmm... dung.
I am therefore, not greatly encouraged by the director of those movies, directing the new Dr.Who film.
I have been a fan of Dr.Who since childhood, and I am still a fan to this day, despite the best efforts of Russell T Davies to turn it into a camp farce during his tenure, it really doesn't need the director of the Harry Potter movies turning out a Dr.Who movie that is as big a damp squib as those movies were.
Get Ridley Scott to direct the new movie. Then we will see some interesting direction :-)
Luke Skywalker , after saving the Jedi and defeating the Evil Empire ends up getting plugged into the Matrix, eventually he takes every colour pill that is on offer, escapes and defeats the Matrix and then somehow steals Dr Who's tardis, goes back in time kills Kirk's father, destroys Vulcan, but Spock manages to make a mutator beam that turns Luke Skywalker into a Terminator , who then gets back into the stolen Tardis goes back in time and kills Annakin Skywalker's father, unknown to the Skywalker-Terminator , a young Montgomery Scott had stowed away in the Tardis. Scotty destroys Skywalker-Terminator and shags Darth Vader's mother, and thus becomes Darth Vader's father.
The police box has to go though. His spaceship should look like a spaceship. With guns. And they should ditch the silly sonic screwdriver and replace it with a gun. Or two guns. And he should have sex with his sidekick. But only after they've done that hilarious bitching/flirting thing for the first half hour. Then she should probably die. Then he should kill the daleks. With his fists.
Then a cameo from Iron Man after the credits.
I actually think this show has enough of a following in the USA that the American fans would also expect it to stay true to the "British sensibilities" and hopefully this includes a Brit Actor.
The more I think about Hugh Laurie though the better that sounds: not Hugh "House" Laurie but Hugh "Blackadder and similar" Laurie.
But he'd probably want too much money :)
Well, in my view stepping out of established continuity is very disappointing. Even the nineties movie didn't need to do that.
The Doctor has been alive 900 years plus, surely somewhere in there there's enough uncovered ground for a movie to be written within the existing timeline?
The movie i'd love to see is the one about the Time Wars, that happens somewhere between the nineties movie, and Christopher Ecclestone's takeup of the role in 2005.
They won't do that though. They'll muck it up completely. Just you wait. :-)
Anyone remember Judge Dredd?? ............ no?
My point exactly.
You can guarantee that as the money will come from the US that the choice for the Dr. will be out of Auntie's hands. Thereby ensuring the Dr. Who movie will be forced kicking and squeeling into the mire of Fan hatred and disapointment.
A movie studio execs idea of "the lead" will always be a trillion miles away from what the rest of the know universe wants.
Rant over :) I do like the suggested Richard E Grant and a Steam Punk TARDIS. Especially if it follws the story arc from the beginning of the Doctor.
Is this new film going to be canon?
Given that I'll believe it when I actually see it in a cinema, I'll assume by default that it's not.
But if it does happen, it'll be a modern-day repeat of the Peter Cushing films. An internationally known star (Hugh Grant or Bill Nighy) playing *a* Doctor, but merely picking whichever bits of the TV show canon that suit the producers, and making up any contradictory stuff to fill the gaps.
Cumberbatch may be good for the TV series (though I'd prefer him as a recurring Master), but I'm not sure he's world famous enough for a film version. Same goes for the David Tennant comeback theory.
I wouldn't be surprised if it features the Timelords and no Timewar, in which case what about some CGI footage of a high council meeting featuring the faces of Oliver Reed, Laurence Olivier, Patrick McGoohan, Danny Dyer, Johns Guielgud and Mills, and any other iconic British actors from the past?
I suspect it'll be a good film, but utterly hated by fans of the show. Even more than the established fact that he's half human is actually called "Doctor Who" and votes Tory.
This seems to be your third Who story in a week or so. Kudos.
Like many above, Hugh Laurie would be my default choice, especially as I think there was pretty serious talk of House ending at the end of this year, making him available. Otherwise, maybe Ben Whishaw? He seems to be pretty good at just about everything. If they could get Eccleston back, even to play the character in a completely different way, I'd be very happy indeed.
I can't think of any Americans that are suitable for the part, though I think that may just be that modern American film writing doesn't allow for a hero that's also the smartest person in the room. That'd be too elitist, right?
"He praised Davies' and Moffat's concepts, but said: "[W]e have to put that aside and start from scratch"."
Can't agree with that. The new series has been brilliant and drawn a lot of new fans to the show. Seems to me he just wants to have his own way rather than produce what's worked so far.
While I don't know who would be best for the role I, speaking AS an American, agree totally with "NOT an American playing the Doctor" sentiment.
What I DO recommend is Wayne Pygram (channelling Scorpius) to play The Master.
I am deeply concerned that this will be such an extreme departure from what we all know as the Who universe as to be unrecognizable crap that irreparably damages the "brand."
... and if it is to remain within the canon, then they should really start with an old actor (a la Hartnell), allowing them to progressively recast with younger actors over the years that I am sure they anticipate the new movie series to run.
In that age bracket I'd toss in Lee or McKellen as ideal choices.
Other perhaps less likely options to include: Charles Dance or even (to complete mind-f*ck the fans) Tom Baker as a new FIRST Doctor (a title that he already holds imho, despite his sequential designation as 4th).
Sonic screwdriver in the pocket.
What ever you do please Keep the doctor with the accent.
Do not kill the doctors voice like that did with that latest James Bond character who to me looks more like a Russian than anything bred inside europe.
A. Keep him with a european accent!
B. Keep him true to the past functions as that of the past doctors.
C. Do not call him THE DOCTOR if you are going to hire a 7 foot monster(or 4 feet)
D. I would like to see the doctor exploring more rooms of the tardis! Would be nice to have a full VRML or CAD file of the tardis and export it to a shooting game.
E. Make sure when the movie is complete it opens everywhere at the same time on planet earth and not some lame 6 month or 1 year waiting period before it shows in other countries.
F. There is no F.
Before belittling the "American Threat" to the purity of the vision, one should check out the two existing Dr Who films and see what (mis)casting Van Helsing aka Grand Moff Tarkin as The Doctor did to the franchise before most of you were born.
Also - Bernard Cribbins. Heads should have rolled.
So a big screen production of a classic TV show? any actor with two brain cells to rub together will know what Hollywood's track record is and also the expression 'bad career move' which leaves Steve Martin who is really very good at burying classic TV and Movies without a trace the perfect murder!
Funny thought though the Dr has always been idiosyncratic a little odd or off the wall crazy ...and I understand Mr Charlie Sheen is available
Means nothing. No money, no script, no crew, etc. Countless Doctor Who movies have been in development, some of which even got as far as having scripts attached to them as well as directors (one early 90's effort even claimed to have Leonard Nimoy attached to direct). Still didn't get made.
It's a long and hard journey (thankfully) to the silver screen. Presumably all this so called "announcement" means is that someone is trying to drum up some money to develop the idea further. Even that alone will take years.
Basically believe it when they start shooting.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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 :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019