Why There Will Never Be Another Doctor Who Movie
- By Stephen Scott
- 12 years ago
Hollywood loves rehashing successful franchises to generate more cash. Charlie’s Angels, Transformers, and the Bourne series are just some of the TV shows, toys or books that have recently been rehashed.
Television shows in particular have been getting a good run recently: Star Trek was spectacularly rebooted with a new cast and new parallel universe (nice touch); Tom Cruise’s Mission: Impossible series doesn’t seem to want to end; and the recent relaunch of The Muppets shows that a weekly TV program can create memorable movie characters.
But for every hit, there is a miss: Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard and Lost in Space are proof of that.
Which is precisely why there should never, nay, will never be another Doctor Who movie. At least in the foreseeable future.
No matter what storyline or actors are chosen, it will end up being another Dark Shadows: a film that polarised the audience with fans feeling cheated and newbies to the franchise being baffled with boredom.
The recent pitch for new Who by David Yates stated it wouldn’t feature the existing Doctor (Matt Smith), essentially making it a reboot. This is pointless as the TV show has had 11 major reboots over its 49 year history.
Doctor Who is unparalleled in this aspect – with each new regeneration, and even with the departure and arrival of new companions, the show changes. Sometimes minimally, sometimes going in a brand new direction.
Colin Baker’s 6th Doctor harked back to the original William Hartnell – snippy, aggressive, cantankerous … essentially a loveable pain-in-the-arse. The 10th Doctor became a sci-fi love story with Billie Piper’s Rose and Freema Agyeman’s Martha harping over the devilishly good-looking and increasingly power-mad David Tennant.
Whom would the film version be based on? Definitely not the Peter Davison soppy wet fish Doctor, nor the clownish Patrick Troughton, or the maniacal Tom Baker.
No, we’d end up with a Hollywood version: a Frankenstein’s monster mash-up of the last three Doctors. Brooding, good-looking, and (naturally) insanely brilliant. And of course not angry or conflicted or potentially vengeful – a big screen Doctor would have to be easily accessible for the masses.
The problem is, fans have seen this all before. The Doctor’s personality must be different for each regeneration – that’s what makes the concept work. Having a slightly watered-down Doctor harks back to the original two Peter Cushing films. While the first was a hit, the second crashed and burned, leaving the franchise to continue solely on the small screen.
It would be a mistake to alienate the existing fanbase, the largest potential audience, with a celluloid Doctor they are highly likely to reject. For this reason alone, the BBC would be hesitant to proceed back to the big screen.
Then there is the companion: the ‘everyman’ who juxtaposes the Gallifreyan’s alien nature by injecting humanity and awe. Like a dumbed-down Dr Watson, the companion is essential to Doctor Who, they are not only our eyes, but our key to this universe. Without the ability to grow a character over time, a film version would become a cheap, one-dimensional side-kick, similar to Dr Holloway in the one-off TV movie.
Most importantly to a movie reboot is the MacGuffin. Popularity dictates it would probably be the Daleks or the Master, but with recent stories brilliantly told with these villains, and even the introduction of new adversaries that stand up well alongside their predecessors (the Weeping Angels, the Silence, and the Vashta Nerada), a new movie would either have to portray an existing villain in a new and exciting way, or debut a new opponent – one worthy of the pantheon of the Whoniverse.
While it’s exciting to think of the possibilities, history proves that this is highly unlikely.
The final nail in the coffin of a new movie is Steven Moffat’s innovative approach to season 7, where every episode itself feels like a movie. In his own words, every Doctor Who episode for 2012-2013 was created with “slutty titles and movie poster plots … big pictures and straplines”. He even said that one episode he wrote would “feel a bit like Die Hard”.
What’s the point of making a Doctor Who movie when we’ve just had five absolute classics, with another seven to come in 2013 … including a second episode penned by the extraordinary Neil Gaiman, and an episode tentatively titled “Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS”?
Perhaps there will be another Doctor Who movie, but not until the current series is rested to allow demand to grow again. Which hopefully won’t be for quite a few years yet.
The Sessions
- By Elizabeth Best
- 12 years ago
What’s it about?
Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes, Deadwood) is a poet and journalist with a sweet, vibrant mind but a polio-ridden tomb of a body. After taking an assignment to write an article about sex and the disabled, he enlists the services of a sex surrogate (Helen Hunt) to help him shed his V-plates, seeking counsel from a priest with glorious hair (William H. Macy) along the way.
What did we think?
Mitch says: This is a beautifully made, thoughtfully told remarkable movie that teeters between being hilarious and unbelievably heart-wrenching. Hawkes is astonishing, effortlessly moving the audience while actually moving, like, two muscles the entire time. Hunt gives a physically and emotionally powerful performance – although her Massachusetts accent is a little wonky. Meanwhile, the always wonderful Macy is at risk of being upstaged by his hair. Fans of Deadwood will enjoy the mini-reunion among the expanded cast. A glorious piece of filmmaking.
Bachelorette
- By Elizabeth Best
- 12 years ago
What’s it about?
Three skinny cows, resentful that their fat friend is getting married before them, make fun of her behind her back and then have to fix it when stuff goes predictably pear shaped.
What did we think?
Liz says: Apart from a few (very few) amusing one liners, this film totally squanders its usually hilarious cast (Lizzie Caplan, Isla Fisher and Adam Scott, I am looking at YOU). The leads are so unlikeable and mean-spirited that I didn’t give a damn what happened to any of them. This film should have been called Bitchelorette.
Intouchables
- By Anthony Sherratt
- 12 years ago
What’s it about?
After he becomes a quadriplegic from a paragliding accident, an aristocrat hires a young man from the the wrong side of town (who only turned up to the interview to get a signature to get his benefits) to be his caretaker.
What did we think?
Lisa Campbell says: A touching yet simple story of friendship and differences. The movie was full of laughs and surprisingly mostly at the expense of Philippe’s disability. Terrific casting for a warm and engaging film of how the relationship between two completely different people develops. I truly loved it and recommend it to everyone. One not to miss.
Argo
- By Stephen Scott
- 12 years ago
What’s it about?
Proof that truth is stranger than fiction, Argo is a dramatisation of the rescue of the “Canadian Six” from Iran during the revolutionary uprising of 1979. With radical alternatives to save the group dismissed, the best worst idea is employed: pretend the fugitives are shooting a science fiction movie.
What did we think?
Stephen says: This fast-paced thriller puts you, then keeps you, on the edge of your seat – a high accomplishment as we know how it ends. Affleck cleverly doesn’t identify a specific villain, instead focussing on the retributive predisposition of a people finally freed from their tyrannical ruler, only to inflict their own brand of terror. When faced with a nation of hatred, it makes the planning and execution of this escape even more nail biting. Some are upset the film wavers from the true story, but don’t worry about that. A highly enjoyable film that dramatises an already astonishing story.
Frankenweenie
- By Elizabeth Best
- 12 years ago
What’s it about?
A heartwarming tale about a boy and his dog. His dead dog.
What did we think?
Liz says: A return to the terrifically twisted kookiness of vintage Tim Burton. Based on a live-action short from 1984, this delightfully dark flick pays homage to classic schlock horror movies using Burton’s iconic stop-motion animation and eerily cute designs. Not sure the 3D added much and the ending didn’t quite ring true but it’s an enjoyable ride fans will welcome. Restricting the film to black and white lends a macabre, attractively moldy atmosphere that almost erases some of Burton’s overly colourful missteps into the mainstream during the past few years. The Halloween partner to Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas, it’s sure to gently thrill the youngster in those old enough to remember comic-book ads for Sea Monkeys.