and if there's a record scratch sound effect in the trailer so help me

[spatch]

Variety is reporting that David Yates, director of the last few Harry Potter films (honestly, was I the only one who really thought Alfonso Cuaron did a great job?) is "teaming up" with the BBC to make Doctor Who a movie.

Yippee! Zowie! The Doctor who is not Peter Cushing and his companions on the big screen! Let's read the article together, you and I, and thrill to the exciting developments to come!

Yates, who directed the last four Potter films, told Daily Variety that he is about to start work on developing a "Doctor Who" movie with Jane Tranter, head of L.A.-based BBC Worldwide Prods.

Okay, Jane Tranter worked with Russell T. Davies on the New Who. I took a liking to her after reading Davies' production diaries, if only because she had the common sense to turn down some of Russell's more embarrassingly bad ideas. Onward and let's get to the good parts like MAYBE IF K-9 WILL BE IN IT! I LIKE K-9!

"We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right," he said. "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."

Well that's a bit of a comedown. I never like hearing that an established series needs a "radical" kind of anything. And Doctor Who doesn't. Want to make an exciting and fun Doctor Who movie? Get Moffat to write, get Matt Smith and anybody who's around after the Christmas special. (I have yet to watch the second half of this season, by the way, and I've studiously avoided spoilers so I don't know anything that's happened since Spring) Have them run around for two hours thwarting alien menaces in a solidly-crafted story, and you'll have some damn good sci-fi. People are going to want to see the characters they know and love.

Maybe I'm overreacting just a little bit. Maybe I'm taking "radical transformation" out of proportion. Maybe all Yates really wants to do is change the theme tune, you know, put some heavy bass under it or something. Or maybe he'll make the Cybermen glow orange. Let's see.

Yates made clear that his movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but would take a completely fresh approach to the material.

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.

wait

what

DOES THIS MEAN WE WON'T GET K-9?!

Now that's a pretty spectacular disappointment and specific to boot! Time was all someone had to do to irk the masses was say "Hey I'm making a movie of a favorite sci-fi/fantasy property" and we'd descend like howler monkeys (we are legion; we are hyperbolic) to cry "It won't be the same! It will suck!" More often than not we were vindicated. Hello, I, Robot. Other times really everyone was pleasantly surprised with how well it came out. Hello, Lord of the Rings. But David Yates here doesn't even set a "might not suck" bar. He simply kicks it to the ground with a Reboot implication. Yeah, don't think like he won't. Phrases like "completely fresh" and "start from scratch" are pretty damning.

Doctor Who is a British institution and beloved television show for decades, and there's one good reason why: It's constant even in the face of changes that would faze other television programs. Actors and actresses (including leads) come and go, show runners switch off, the TARDIS keeps looking different inside. It's a show all about change, but it's been constant in that change. It has built a robust universe with strong characters, recurring villains, and species who have been allowed to develop on their own as characters.

Doctor Who has become one grand epic story, and while some chapters have been better than others and okay, there might have been some slight fiddling with the canon, it's still an amazing work all around. A lot of really clever and talented people have worked hard on this story over the years and starting from scratch, doing away with their universe entirely, is an insult to their endeavors.

It seems to me that while Yates can cloak his intentions with "It's an artistic necessity! Honest!" what he really wants here is Michael Bay blockbuster grosses. Take a franchise that people have heard of, turn it into blow-up-real-good entertainment for the PG-13 demographic, then go swim in your Scrooge McDuck money bin. And there's nothing wrong with blow-up-real-good entertainment, but you don't have to ruin Doctor Who to do it.

Comments

[sovay]

(honestly, was I the only one who really thought Alfonso Cuaron did a great job?)

No; it's my favorite of the films. The strength of the source material didn't hurt—after she stopped repeating herself and before she forgot how to edit—and neither did the addition of David Thewlis and Gary Oldman, but it was the first movie that felt like a living world, not a kind of tableau vivant.

Yates made clear that his movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but would take a completely fresh approach to the material.

I do not then see the point of a Doctor Who film at this time. The series is by definition rebooted on a continuing basis; why not stick with the current continuity? It'll change in a few seasons anyway, so we might as well exploit the chance of Matt Smith on a big screen while we can.

[spatch]

I think the Hogwarts atmosphere gave the first film that living world feel, and that's definitely due to Chris Columbus' by-the-numbers adaptation. In the first, Harry wanders around all wide-eyed at his new surroundings, and we get to be all wide-eyed, too. Even though the film plods in paces, it plods with a marvelous sense of wonder.

But when you start cutting for time, atmosphere can be easy chaff to remove, and the later films show it. (Rowling also pretty much wrote out the likes of Peeves and Nearly-Headless Nick, which was a shame. Peeves was always funny when referred to off-page. But even with Rik Mayall in the role, he would have been terribly annoying on film.)

Cuaron stuck to the source in his own way. He picked different details and lingered on them, like the raindrops on the playground equipment outside at night. That was the moment I sat up and said "Okay, this is going to be special." His artistic digressions were lovely, and the contemporary costume design was a very good idea. I don't know how he would have taken things once they took a real turn for the dark, though.

The series is by definition rebooted on a continuing basis; why not stick with the current continuity?

And that's the question David Yates ought to answer openly and honestly, without using phrases like "the bigger arena." Granted, this project is clearly in the very early stages so casting isn't even a thought yet, but I don't think a re-start in the film with the existing actors would jibe with their goings-on in the television series. But introducing an all-new Doctor will be a great way to put off the existing fans who want to see their Doctor in the theaters.

[sovay]

I think the Hogwarts atmosphere gave the first film that living world feel, and that's definitely due to Chris Columbus' by-the-numbers adaptation.

That's fair. I didn't hate the first film; it just felt like a sort of illustrated Cliff's notes. Prisoner of Azkaban felt unpredictable, even though I'd read the book.

In the first, Harry wanders around all wide-eyed at his new surroundings, and we get to be all wide-eyed, too. Even though the film plods in paces, it plods with a marvelous sense of wonder.

But when you start cutting for time, atmosphere can be easy chaff to remove, and the later films show it.

I haven't yet seen the last. The first half of Deathly Hallows seems to have taken up no space in my brain at all and Half-Blood Prince, while thankfully cutting most of the snogging, still somehow managed to feel thinner and faster than it should. (I can't tell if I'm agreeing with you.)

I don't know how he would have taken things once they took a real turn for the dark, though.

The only other one of his films I've seen is Children of Men. He would probably have done fine with the action; I don't know about the macabre.

And that's the question David Yates ought to answer openly and honestly, without using phrases like "the bigger arena."

I wonder if there's still that air of Doctor Who as that thing you get out of the BBC (as Neil Gaiman said) no matter what you put into it: not real science fiction, not real fantasy, so it doesn't matter if you don't treat it with the same weight as The Hitchhiker's Guide. Or maybe someone thinks a total overhaul won't really be noticed what with all the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey etc. already going on upstairs. But I may be maligning David Yates and his writers. Hopefully it's the sort of question one feels honor-bound to answer when asked by legions of bristling fans.

[spatch]

I didn't hate the first film; it just felt like a sort of illustrated Cliff's notes.

Yeah! That's it, exactly. Here is Dumbledore extinguishing the street lights. Here is Harry under the stairs. Here are the envelopes flying around the room! Here is Hagrid on his flying motorbike! Okay son, you've made your point abundantly clear.

you get out of the BBC (as Neil Gaiman said) no matter what you put into it: not real science fiction, not real fantasy, so it doesn't matter if you don't treat it with the same weight as The Hitchhiker's Guide.

I don't know if I can completely get behind that. Both Life on Mars and, to a lesser extent, Ashes to Ashes, were very strong, very dark dramas with integral science-fiction elements. Charlie Brooker's brilliant Dead Set, while veering more towards the ghoulish, was rooted in sci-fi yet wasn't exactly whimsical. (You gotta love Big Brother presenters and guests willing to play themselves as zombies, though. Brooker does lovely meta-work, even if his ending was totally heavy-handed.)

But you're right, it's still pervasive. For every Dead Set there's a Spaced or a Red Dwarf. Not to knock any of 'em, to be sure.

[sovay]

I don't know if I can completely get behind that. Both Life on Mars and, to a lesser extent, Ashes to Ashes, were very strong, very dark dramas with integral science-fiction elements.

Oh, God, I don't think Gaiman's line is applicable to the BBC anymore, if it ever was! (Nigel Kneale, hello.) Just that if there is still this perception of Doctor Who as a kind of fallback—comfort food rather than national institution—it would not be surprising if it affected how seriously an adaptation might be treated.

. . . I quite like Red Dwarf. First two seasons, anyway.

[doctor-sentence.livejournal.com]

Charlie Brooker's brilliant Dead Set, while veering more towards the ghoulish, was rooted in sci-fi yet wasn't exactly whimsical.

Dead Set was Channel 4, not BBC. Ditto Spaced.

As for the movie, not optimistic, but trying not to prejudge it.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

I actually am not that bothered by the idea of ditching the decades of (dis)continuity, as long as it doesn't alter the heart of the concept.

RTD went back to basics when he started with Christopher Eccleston: there was a mystery man with a time/space machine; he claimed to be an alien, though he just looked like a person; we saw him primarily from the POV of his new human friend, to whom he appeared by turns scary, goofy and fascinating, with a consuming curiosity. Though the show didn't abandon its history, you didn't have to know any of that stuff to appreciate it.