Would you want a real Doctor Who movie?

[horacethegrey]

Just like the title says. Would you people fancy watching a big screen adventure of the goold ol' Doc?

I was thumbing through my copy of Doctor Who Magazine 379, and there was an extended article on a unmade movie treatment called Doctor Who meets Scratchman. It was written by none other than the Fourth Doctor himself, Tom Baker, and co star Ian Marter (who played Harry Sullivan). Production on the movie however, never got off the ground, due to a number of factors. Which is kind of sad really, as they could have joined scifi blockbuster wave that was started by the original Star Wars (theres a funny sidenote in the article of how dejected Baker and Marter were after seeing that film ).

Now though, with the renewed popularity of the show and advances in special effects, a Doctor Who film can be done. But would you people want to watch it? If so, who would you like to direct?

Discuss.

 

[Lackhand]

My problem would be exactly what the production qualities were.
The problem with Doctor Who is that for me, the best episodes blend together humor, self-deprecating cheesiness, drama, and (the requisite) science fiction.

Firefly has a similar vibe, to my mind; the show runs on the moments of human interaction and hesitant responses. We identify more strongly with the characters because we smile at their -- and our -- flaws.

Serenity didn't have that. To fit in a 2+ hour movie timeslot, background, exposition, actual story, and resolution all had to be rolled up and crammed in together. A lot had to be sacrificed, and to me, the movie felt more like a very good science fiction movie with vaguely similar characters. They just didn't feel the same, without laughing.

I'd worry, a lot, that a movie Dr. Who would have to give a lump of background and lose the grinning charm that makes the series work; taken too far the other way, it becomes the movies we've already got: cheesy drek.

But oh, how I'd like for it to be done, and done 'correctly'

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't think I would. I've yet to see a film made of a television series that really 'worked' for me - movie writers and directors always seem to want to change too much.

Even the 'made for TV' mcGann doctor who movie was atrocious IMO. It abandoned too much 'proper Dr Who' and introduced bizarre new things just for the movie.

 

[horacethegrey]

My problem would be exactly what the production qualities were.
The problem with Doctor Who is that for me, the best episodes blend together humor, self-deprecating cheesiness, drama, and (the requisite) science fiction.

Star Wars had all those elements (aside from the cheesiness), and look how it turned out.

I'd worry, a lot, that a movie Dr. Who would have to give a lump of background and lose the grinning charm that makes the series work; taken too far the other way, it becomes the movies we've already got: cheesy drek.

I don't think there's any need to give much background in a Doctor Who movie. Star Trek The Motion Picture went along just fine with only a mere mention of the series' past (granted, I'll still think that film is a colossal bore, but much better than some of the later films).

I don't think I would. I've yet to see a film made of a television series that really 'worked' for me - movie writers and directors always seem to want to change too much.

Not even Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan?

Even the 'made for TV' mcGann doctor who movie was atrocious IMO. It abandoned too much 'proper Dr Who' and introduced bizarre new things just for the movie.

I have a soft spot for the Doctor Who TV movie, being that it was the first Doctor Who anything I ever watched. At the time I thought it was quite decent, and really made me familiar with the series' staple elements. Things such as time travel, the Master, and of course, regeneration (I was really awed by this scene, to see the main character literally change like that ).

Course, compared to the new series, it's clearly subpar. But there are some bits that I love, particularly Paul Mcgann's portrayal of the Eighth Doctor. He was great in the role, and it guts me that he never got another chance to play the part onscreen. Although I'm loving him again in the Eighth Doctor audio dramas.

 

[Fast Learner]

It doesn't appeal to me. Dr. Who is perfect on my TV. Maybe a two-hour DVD movie.

 

[Morrus]

No, not really. I'd rather see more episodes. A movie's only the length of two episodes anyway.

 

[Mark Hope]

There actually were two Doctor Who movies back in the mid-60s (Doctor Who and the Daleks and Dalek Invasion of Earth: 2150 AD) with Peter Cushing as the Doctor. They were OK for their time, but had several of the flaws that fans today worry about: they changed established canon to make it "easier to understand" (the Doctor was a human inventor, not a Time Lord), they fiddled with the look and feel of the show (the Tardis interior was more like a crazed junk shop than a time machine), they altered the dynamic of the characters for supposedly better on-screen appeal (Ian's character became more comic relief than anything else). On the plus side, they were in lush colour, had what looked like decent sets for the time, and had lots of Daleks. I loved them when I was a kid, and my kids today love them, but great Doctor Who movies they are not. Camp fun and worth a look, though.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think there's any need to give much background in a Doctor Who movie. Star Trek The Motion Picture went along just fine with only a mere mention of the series' past (granted, I'll still think that film is a colossal bore, but much better than some of the later films).

To an American audience, at least, there's the simple fact that Doctor Who isn't Star Trek. Trek could get away with that because by the time the movie was made, the show was legendary, and had become part of mass popular culture. The Federation, the tech, the characters were all well-known icons not only among all sci-fi fans, but the populace in general.

The same cannot be said for Doctor Who - the important bits about who timelords are, who the bad guys are, and all that, simply isn't already known. Failing to fill the audience in would leave them very confused, especially at the pace most Doctors move along

Plus, Trek was a series that would be well-served by being on the big screen. There's these huge ships, and all of space, and planets to orbit and whatnot. These are things that the big screen does well. The sorts of Stories that Doctor Who does best aren't the sort that would really gain much from being writ larger on a bigger screen. So, I don't see much need for a silver-screen film.

They can do as many TV-movies as they like, however

Not even Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan?

 

[horacethegrey]

There actually were two Doctor Who movies back in the mid-60s (Doctor Who and the Daleks and Dalek Invasion of Earth: 2150 AD) with Peter Cushing as the Doctor.

Yes, I know about the Cushing movies. I've not watched them, but people have been telling me how bad they were so I never bothered seeking them out. This is why I asked if people were up for a real Doctor Who film, since these two films changed so many elements of the series that one cannot consider them part of the franchise.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I would be more interested in more movie length episodes in the series. In other words more double episodes that run 1hr 20min, like most of the old series Doctor who. The current episodes feel too rushed. As for a real movie, as others have said I fear they would butcher the concept to make it more appealing to a wider audience.