Doctor Who: The Library of Carsus discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
The TARDIS'S ARCHIVE
>
movie rumors
date
newest »
newest »
I'm also somewhere between. As a long-time fan I'm sure whatever becomes of it I'll enjoy, but I'm not going to get too excited until the trailers are released.They are saying that it will be separate from the TV series (so not part of the normal DW Universe Cannon). I am mixed on that also. If it does connect to the series then they are limited in some areas and ideas. If it is separate they then take the risk of it being sooooo different that even the long-time fans will be confused and not like it. Some fans have already expressed their displeasure at it trying to distance itself from the series.
Some things I would like a DW movie to have:
UNIT
Gallifrey & other TimeLords not just The Master
A backstory of The Doctor acquiring The TARDIS - Show it in it's basic plane box shape then when he lands in 1960s London it changing to the familiar Police Box shape (and it making a strange clunking sound during the process indicating the chameleon circuit breaking) Later show the Doctor start to fix it but he is interrupted from his work by an emergency.
Some old time companions would be nice but fans would expect the original actors if they are still living.
Possibly have the Daleks battle the Cybermen Ah here is an idea start the movie off near the end of a huge all-out Cyberman vs. Dalek battle the last 5 or 6 Cybermen are face to eyestalk with the last 4 or 5 Daleks then one of two things happens:
1) The Doctor arrives The TARDIS landing right in the middle of the crossfire. Then the Daleks/Cybermen temporarily call a truce to chase the Doctor Who has conveniently escaped somehow or The Doctor somehow convinces them to stop fighting and they do until one of them breaks the truce by shooting the other a few minutes later.
2) Just as the final Daleks and Cybermen are figuratively at each other's throats They are frozen in time. Somehow the Doctor stumbles upon the scene and tries to figure out the best solution to what seems like a no-win scenario.
I don't think any Doctor Who movie made today could be as bad as that one made in the 90's. So I have hope that it could be good.
The reason I tend to defend the 90's movie is because they got the Doctor right, Sylvester McCoy got his regeneration scene and that is the most beautiful Tardis set ever.If we are talking Eric Roberts as the Master and 'I'm half human..."..., I can't defend that.
Did you see Moffat's tweet today about taking a run at the moon? No money, no plan, no help from NASA - but he knows where the moon is; he's seen it! Sounds about right to me.
I'm taking a wait and see attitude regarding whether it gets made or not.As for quality... well, it sounds like there's a possibility it won't be in current continuity; so, if it sucks, we're still good! :-)
My thoughts: Not tied to the show, then really, why bother? We've had 2 Who movies already not tied to the series AND made in Hollywood. The Peter Cushing ones, the first being "Doctor Who and the Daleks". For those who haven't heard of it, the Doctor isn't an alien, he is a human scientist and his surname is Who. He has a TARDIS but its not a time-traveling spaceship. In fact, I don't think it did anything. So really, WHAT????And really, I love America, I truely do, but we need to stop getting involved in the production of British media. We just screw it up. Like Torchwood: Miracle Day.
The article I read over at DoctorWhoOnline quoted Yates as saying "the Doctor is an alien in human form." Human form? Has he ever *watched* the show? Yes, he is a humanoid but his quote makes it sound like the human form was chosen specifically. I haven't seen anyone from Galifray who wasn't humanoid.
For the movie to have any credibility with Whovians, the director/producers, etc need to be fans or at least familiar with the series - including the "classic Who". I had no respect for the "Best of ..." series that they did because it was 1) only the best of Smith's Doctor and 2) I really questioned if some of those celebs watched the same show I did. There were a few who you could tell were true Whovians.
Now if the did a prequel as Kirk suggests, giving us the backstory, I could live with that. Since everything has to be a high action with tons of explosions now, I could also go with a movie of the Time War, bridging Classic and New.
The other thing I asked my husband...what do we call this Doctor? I've never seen anyone count Cushing, so would we include this? If we have a Doctor and we know he's returning, say the movie was released next month for example, would we refer to him as 11.5, since we'd see 11(Smith) again next year on the show? Hubby suggested that the movie could be used to introduce us to #12.
Travis wrote: "The reason I tend to defend the 90's movie is because they got the Doctor right, Sylvester McCoy got his regeneration scene and that is the most beautiful Tardis set ever.If we are talking Eric R..."
I feel like 8th Doctor was completely wasted in that movie. Sylvester McCoy's death was the weirdest, most random plot device they could have possibly come up with. Bad acting, horrible writing and the bizarre American movie sensibilities all ruined it for me.
Travis wrote: "The reason I tend to defend the 90's movie is because they got the Doctor right, Sylvester McCoy got his regeneration scene and that is the most beautiful Tardis set ever.I love the 8th Doctor. I would love to have seen more screen time with him. I think Paul McGann is brilliant in the Big Finish audios.
I agree about the TARDIS, though! I loved that look!
LizI agree the producers/writers need to at least be familiar with the series (long time BBC employees or have worked on Who Before). I also agree about the "Best of Series" stuff being not so much. There is a similar trio of "best of" extras on the extra disc that is included in the DVD of Doctor Who: Dreamland an animated story with Doc 10. The 3 specials are of the same format as the ones you mention but they include just the current series docs (barely touch on Eccleston). As for the "celeb" fans they chose to use one or two of them were actors who appeared in the series but most of them were like these reality "stars" people who are "famous" for being famous. Not real Celebs.
Re: Cushing Movies, even though he isn't counted in the main continuity canon he is modeled after Doc 1. The stories they chose for the films were Doc 1 stories as it was before there were multiple Docs. So in a weird way he can be considered an alternate Doc 1.
Another thought on what would make a cool story is to start off with an Archaeologist on a dig of an ancient civilization that s/he has been studying for years. The ruins and texts of the civilization often appear to have weird anachronisms that unbeknownst to the archaeologist refer to the Doctor. In a crypt the dig team finds the remains of something they think is a sarcophagus but turns out to be the TARDIS. Inside the TARDIS is a wreck, but in one of the rooms they find a strange looking man in some sort of status field chamber. It turns out to be the Doctor. They awaken him and he has only a vague recollection of entering the status chamber. He had to escape some disaster or danger that he can't recall but fears will come back and he has to stop it before it does.
Why make the movie if it is 'notconnected ' with the series? What will they call the protagonist? the Traveler?If, however, they mean simply using different actors, it is just possible it may be good. We could have a prequel to the entire series--we never have got the full story of why the Doctor left Gallifrey.
But I am jsutifiably afraid they will ruin something I love.
Btw, the movie with Paul McGann was really not as bad as people claim. I've seen worse epsiodes of WHO.
Btw, the movie with Paul McGann was really not as bad as people claim. I've seen worse epsiodes of WHO. I agree I happen to enjoy the McGann movie. I do admit that when I saw it upon it's initial airing on Fox TV I didn't like the "Doctor falling in love with his companion" mostly because until that point they had never attempted to explore the Doctor's personal intimate affairs. Later viewings of it and now with the companions in the current series the Doctor being "in love" doesn't bother me like it did back then in 1996.
At first the 'Doctor kiss' was a shock. Then we got Tennant and it became a weekly event and we started to miss the 'just one kiss' Doctor.and the movie does have it's flaws, but was fun, got enough right, and was intended as a pilot episode, so I cut it some slack and generally enjoy it.
Beats 'Love and Monsters'.
I haven't had the chance to re-watch the movie, just caught it when it aired. I remember rushing home from some sporting event and was very disappointed. It didn't live up to the expectations I had built up on memories of Classic Who in my childhood. If it ever becomes Netflix Insta-watch, I will rewatch.Kirk, I knew that the Cushing movies were based on Hartnell's Doctor, I just don't understand why they removed the alien/time travel aspects. I don't want to say that's what Doctor Who is all about, but its almost like the soul of the show, or at least the DNA that everything else is built upon.
I don't know why they made Cushing's Doctor Human either. They probably thought it would be easier to explain things if he was just an essentric and not an actual alien.
I watched a documentary about the Cushing movies a couple of months back, and they were never really intended to do anything more than cash-in on the Dalek-mania that was gripping England at the time. They were patterned after Doctor Who, but not part of the Whoniverse as we know it.
Shame the Cushing movies didn't make as much money as the studio hoped, as their were plans for a third one based on the TV show 'The Chase'.Always liked that story. Would have loved to have seen it get the big screen treatment.
Travis wrote: "At first the 'Doctor kiss' was a shock."I remember how shocked fans were back in 1996 when we learnt that the Doctor would finally kiss a girl. I sometimes wonder how the fandom of 1996 would have reacted if they'd known that, 15 years later,the Doctor would not only be kissing girls but marrying them!
As to the proposed new film, I think I'll wait for more information before I pass judgement one way or the other. Although, I think it would make sense in a way to set it apart from the TV series. Otherwise the TV series would have to go on hiatus for a year or so while Matt Smith (or whomever is playing the Doctor at that point)goes off to make the film. I get the feeling that a number of fans would not appreaciate that at all.
Travis wrote: "So, I guess I'll be the one to start...This talk of a new Doctor Who movie, what do people think? Excited or dreading?
I'm somewhere inbetween the two emotions.
How about the rest of you?"
Think I'm mildly excited but with Hollywood's involvement being suggested I worry that the quirkyness and dare I say BBC feel will be lost - I would like to see, as someone else mentioned a prequel, where perhaps the Doctor's earlier life (i.e. pre-Hartnell) is explored, including the relationship with the Daleks, Davros and the Cybermen...after all one or more of these arch enemies will probably feature in any film.
Geevee wrote: "Think I'm mildly excited but with Hollywood's involvement being suggested I worry that the quirkyness and dare I say BBC feel will be lost - I would like to see, as someone else mentioned a prequel, where perhaps the Doctor's earlier life (i.e. pre-Hartnell) is explored, including the relationship with the Daleks, Davros and the Cybermen...after all one or more of these arch enemies will probably feature in any film."That would be difficult, since we've already seen the Doctor meet each of those enemies for the first time.
Michelle wrote: "Geevee wrote: "Think I'm mildly excited but with Hollywood's involvement being suggested I worry that the quirkyness and dare I say BBC feel will be lost - I would like to see, as someone else ment..."But not explained well in a film...
Geevee wrote:But not explained well in a film... "You may be right but the point is that we know the First Doctor first encountered the Daleks and Cybermen in the TV series and the Fourth met Davros. You could 'recreate' those meeting in a movie certainly but not a movie that's supposed to be a prequel to the TV series.
The more I think about it, the more I think that any possible movie will dispense with the TV series continuity and do it's own thing, a bit like the most recent Star Trek film. That way the movie producers can recreate those iconic first meetings on the big screen without causing any continuity issues and generally annoying the fans.
Mark wrote: "Geevee wrote:But not explained well in a film... "You may be right but the point is that we know the First Doctor first encountered the Daleks and Cybermen in the TV series and the Fourth met Dav..."
Mark this does make a great deal of sense - funny as I immediately thought of it in terms of how they'd try to link the how, when and why in relation to what has gone before. Your idea does this and of course creates a whole potential new fanbase and attendant opportunity for products (which these days is as important to the financial backers as tickets sales themsleves).
Hollywood's track record is really not very good at times. If they can do a movie and not screw the series, fine. I do not want a show I love to be damaged so Hollywood can sell more tickets.Using different actors does not bother me--as I have seen several new Doctors due to regenerations--I've been a fan since 1982. However if they tamper with the basic premise and/or change the Doctor's character so it is completely out of sync with who we know the Doctor to be, it will not be worth it no matter how much money Hollywood and the BBc make.
So, since they don't want to go with a TV Doctor, what actors do you folks would make a good Doctor?Couple picks from me:
Anthony Stewart Head
Simon Pegg
David Thewlis
My wife thinks Rupert Grint would be good, but I'm iffy on that one.
Though, this is hollywood, so they'll probably get Will Smith.
Simon Pegg is a good choice, although, if his Twitter is anything to go by, he's not that interested. THe other two are also good though I'm not sure that either are big enough 'names' to be considered for the part. And I do think they might want a big name for the Doctor. I could actually see Rupert Grint playing the Doctor but not for at least 10 years. He's far too young right now.
I really don't know who I would choose personally but I could see Martin Freeman being considered, particularly if The Hobbit is a big success (which it almost certainly will be).
Martin Freeman would be a good choice.Yeah, my picks probably aren't big bank stars. I just couldn't stand the idea of yet another cute young Doctor.
I remember, back in the dark ages, when the Doctor wasn't a sex symbol.
Of course, if they wanted to go for someone who did have past experience of playing the Doctor and who was also a bankable film star they could go for Rowan Atkinson (or even Hugh Grant for that matter).
How about Aidan Turner for the Doctor? (He's the actor who played Mitchell on the BBC "Being Human" series.)
Not Aidan Turner, I don't think he has the right personality for the role. I agree with the people that said Martin Freeman, I think he would be brilliant. And after the Hobbit, I'm sure he'll be well liked :)
Moffat on Twitter says... "To clarify: any Doctor Who movie would be made by the BBC team, star the current TV Doctor and certainly NOT be a Hollywood reboot. David Yates, great director, was speaking off the cuff, on a red carpet. You've seen the rubbish I talk when I'm cornered."
Regarding the Doctor being human in the Cushing movies, in the Hartnell age, the Doctor was actually supposed to be human. The show was created as an entertainment show for children that was also intended to educate, hence there were so many historical episodes in the first couple of seasons. The character of Susan, his granddaughter, was intended to be someone the target audience could identify with, someone the Doctor could lecture to so the children would understand what was going on and why.By the middle of the third season, Hartnell's health was failing and it became clear that he wouldn't last another season. But the show was already becoming hugely popular, a bigger hit than the BBC ever imagined. In Britain we don't do the whole "the character of the Doctor will now be played by..." thing that happens regularly in the US. So they had a choice. End a show that was bringing in rapidly increasing ratings or find some way to replace Hartnell. That's when they came up with the Doctor being an alien. Gallifrey wasn't mentioned during the Hartnell era and we didn't meet another Timelord until the Troughton story The Meddling Monk. The whole Timelord mythology stems from the Troughton era. I grew up watching the show as a kid myself. Plus you learn a lot from the extra features on the dvd's... ;)
Regarding a new Who movie, unless it explores the early years and shows the Doctor stealing the TARDIS and leaving Gallifrey to start his adventures, I don't have high hopes for it at all. I only watched the 1996 movie once admittedly, but I remember hating it at the time.
Actually, there are a couple references in the Hartnell stories that he and Susan are not from Earth. Some make it sound like they may just be from the future, but others make it sound like they are aliens.
and Time meddler was a Hartnell story.
though, it was the Troughton story 'War games' that introduces the Time lords and a very cool story it is too.
So glad the new show has paved the way for the BBC to release old stories on DVD as I love Troughton and it was so hard/rare to see his episodes.
A timelord first appeared in the Meddling Monk, a Troughton story. His companions come across the monk's TARDIS.
Actually Travis, you're right. What I thought was the Meddling Monk was actually The Time Meddler, a Hartnell story. Which renders everything I said in my earlier post obsolete. The first reference to Timelords was in this story, because the Monk in question has his own TARDIS and I believe the Timelords were first referenced in this story. For some reason I thought it was a Troughton story. Most of what I posted was from watching a documentary about the early years of Doctor Who. So either their memory is very poor or mine is!
That's cool.I was more concerned that I sounded too geeky, yet too much of a jerk.
Been cool watching the Hartnell/Troughton stories on DVD and seeing the mythology being built.
Despite knowing all about the Time Lords, watching the ' Time Meddler' and 'War games', I still got excited that they were giving us hints about the Doctor's home world.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
This talk of a new Doctor Who movie, what do people think? Excited or dreading?
I'm somewhere inbetween the two emotions.
How about the rest of you?