Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Movies Sci-Fi Television Entertainment

Doctor Who To Become Hollywood Feature Film 357

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Variety reports that David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films, is teaming up with the BBC to turn its iconic sci-fi TV series Doctor Who into a Hollywood franchise. 'We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right,' says Yates. 'It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena.' But not everyone is enamored with the idea of Doctor Who on the big screen. 'I fear that high production values and the inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters that a Hollywood treatment brings will destroy the show,' writes Andrew M. Brown in the Telegraph. 'The ecosystem of a great television programme is a delicate thing. Please, Hollywood, don't spoil Doctor Who."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doctor Who To Become Hollywood Feature Film

Comments Filter:
  • Lol (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherIdiot ( 1980292 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:05PM (#38062272)

    Please, Hollywood, don't spoil Doctor Who.

    That's like asking the school bully not to beat you up and take your lunch money.
    He does it every day, he's going to do it every day, and now it's your turn.

    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:12PM (#38062368)

      You Brits don't have a thing to worry about. Hollywood will use cheap CGI and how does Eddie Murphy as Doctor Who sound?

      • I've seen I Spy. It sounds just like something Hollywood would do. Avoid at all costs.

      • it started in 2005 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:29PM (#38062642) Homepage Journal
        They've been trying to add romantic interest since the 2005 reboot. Look at Rose. And Amy. And River. And...

        One of the things I liked about Dr Who was that he was old enough to be cool and detached. He thinks his way out of a problem, not shoots his way out.

        Now it's all "RUN!" and zapping things with his magic wand, err, sonic screwdriver. And sublimated smootchy-face that would embarrass booger and Mrs diPesto.

        I've liked the story arcs with Amy, the way they try to enmesh every single goddamned little thing back into the big story. I just remind myself this isn't Dr Who, it's Han Solo with a Time Machine and a British accent.

        Oh, and apparently they're trying for some sort of record on how fast they can turn over doctors.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:50PM (#38062950)

          They finally added River so The Doctor could have a legitimate romantic interest without having to constantly work in the romantic tension with his companion. Personally I thought the tension was a legitimate character element, but it does get tired after a while.

          As for turnover, Tennant had a longer tenure than everyone except Tom Baker. What I'm wondering is that since the Doctor seems to be getting more cracked every incarnation, I wonder who they're going to get to top Smith.

        • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:21PM (#38063376) Homepage

          Now it's all "RUN!" and zapping things with his magic wand, err, sonic screwdriver. And sublimated smootchy-face that would embarrass booger and Mrs diPesto.

          Well they've run into one of the issues many shows do, they've overpowered him with the "time can be rewritten" arc, saving himself from the prison box when the whole universe has turned against him and so on. That you can't cross your own time stream was like the most important limit to his powers, the answer to "Why can't we just go back with the TARDIS and undo this?" So they've had to offset that with an action pace, because if there was actually time to stop and think about it, there's a million ways he could have gotten out of that easily.

          • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2011 @12:08AM (#38070144) Homepage Journal

            Oh, for Pete's sake. I've been watching those Dr. Who "classic" episodes recently, and even at it's best Dr. Who was never *The Prisoner* or *The Twilight Zone* for chrissakes. It's a fun and cheesy "sci-fi" series that doesn't mind being corny or flirting with camp so long as it was entertainment for the whole family. That meant not having The Doctor do any yucky kissing that would offend junior, while giving Pop the occasional shot of Zoe's besequined bum in that catsuit of hers.

            Don't get me wrong, I love the classic series, but in the same way I can enjoy "Buckaroo Banzai" without confusing it with "Blade Runner". I love the ridiculous monsters, executed with such cheesy verve. About the only thing I really don't like is how mind-numbingly bad the dialog is in many (although not all) classic episodes. Some of that dialog makes George Lucas's Star Wars Dialog sound like *Casablanca*.

            Now why even bother doing a new series that does the same old thing? Are you going to out-Tom-Baker Tom Baker? You can't get that movie serial vibe again because people are just too media savvy. The corn threshold is so much lower.

            So I think they've done a very good job keeping the cheesy spirit while spiffing up the production values. The cast and guest talent are top notch, episode pacing is crisp, and the writing for the most part witty, canny and thoughtful. But the writing is inevitably where the new series has to fall down now and then. This is a series that ran for 26 seasons before the modern incarnation, the main character has almost god-like intellect and the stories involve one of the most logically messy themes in science fiction: time travel. Dr. Who has always needed some ad hoc and not very credible limitations in what the Doctor is allowed do. So I think we have to accept a certain amount of story arc continuity sleight of hand, especially given the long history of the series.

            That said, I fear that using Great Temporal Reset Button in two successive seasons probably indicates the writers have written the show into a corner that can't be fixed without a fallow period or a series reboot that destroys a lot more than one season's continuity.

        • by Mercano ( 826132 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .onacrem.> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:05PM (#38065344)

          Oh, and apparently they're trying for some sort of record on how fast they can turn over doctors.

          Actually, the median per regeneration seems to be somewhere around three years, ignoring the gaps between the old run and the movie, and the movie to the new run, so even if Matt Smith leaves after next year, he isn't leaving unusually early. Granted, the 8th and 9th both were exceptionally short lived, but Tennant actually had the second longest run at 4 years, 6 months, after Tom Baker's 6 years 9 months. Granted, the modern Doctors don't stack up as well in episode count. Even when you account for the fact that they are making longer episodes then they did back when, the older Doctors still were making more content per year.

          If your interested in how long each Doctor lasted... []

      • Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)

        by Baloroth ( 2370816 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:40PM (#38062792)

        Could be worse. Could be directed by Michael Bay and featuring Shia LaBeouf as Dr. Who.

        I'll take cheap CGI.

      • After all, look at how great they did with Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy , staying true to the original book.

    • You're right, and -- bonus -- we pay for the abuse. I'm thinking unless something truly amazing happens, I'll be avoiding this.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There have been a few good movies that started out as TV shows... Star Trek II of course, and... er... Transformers? The cartoon one from the 80s, not the new ones...

      Yeah, okay, odds are about 1,000,000:1 of it not sucking.

    • Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)

      by Pope ( 17780 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:44PM (#38062864)

      I prefer the original series, "Inspector Spacetime."

    • Re:Lol (Score:4, Informative)

      by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:02PM (#38063082) Homepage

      Only most of the time.
      Personally, while some agree, I would say that the lord of the rings trilogy was quite well done.
      and better then i would of thought possible.
      The Hannibal lector series is also, in my opinion, very good and even better then the books.

    • by frisket ( 149522 )

      Please, Hollywood, don't spoil Doctor Who.

      I think the Op might be confusing them with someone who gives a shit.

  • I'm sorry (Score:5, Funny)

    by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:05PM (#38062274) Homepage

    But a director of a Harry Potter film getting withing 10 meters of Dr. Who fills me with a cold, evil feeling.

    Either that or the breakfast burrito was bad...

    • Re:I'm sorry (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Oxford_Comma_Lover ( 1679530 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:19PM (#38062470)

      Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie? The bigger issue is themes. The potter themes are pretty simple. The Who themes are more bipolar--the deep loss and the brilliant moment. The writers sometimes do a good job with this. The themes are good enough, though, that you could do it very well. My guess is it will be better than the last horrible attempt, but still trying to serve a non-who and a who audience, which just doesn't work. You need to serve a who audience in a way which neither leaves everyone else in the dark nor wastes ridiculous time on backstory.

      • by Whalou ( 721698 )

        Depends on the Potter film. The directorial quality jumped around... was it the third movie?

        From TFS:

        Variety reports that David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films [...]

        So no, not the third movie.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        I don't know, with the Doctor's style of gatecrashing it can't be that hard to arrange a situation where you get "Time lord? What's a time lord?" "I thought they were extinct" "They say he's the last of his kind" and then fill in the necessary back story in a relatively short time. A movie would probably have to spend a regeneration though, they can explain the concept early though some flashbacks or whatever but they almost certainly have to use it. And not just cheat-use it as we've seen in the series, bu

        • by gd2shoe ( 747932 )
          I hope they don't do a regeneration just because they feel they must. They've already got a great actor in the lead part. Why mess with that? A regeneration would both feel cliche and risk finding a lesser talent.
    • by Dusty101 ( 765661 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:24PM (#38062550)

      J.K. Rowling was asked to write an episode of Doctor Who a few years ago, but she said she was too busy finishing the last of the Harry Potter books at the time.

      And I like breakfast burritos: probably the greatest North American invention of all time!

    • Both, probably.

  • by Leuf ( 918654 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:07PM (#38062302)
    Yes, we wouldn't want to risk sexualizing Amy Pond.
    • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:11PM (#38062356) Homepage

      Yes, we wouldn't want to risk sexualizing Amy Pond.

      I'll be in my bunk. ;-)

    • Breaking news! Role of Dr. Who to be played by Robert "Footface" Pattinson.

  • DO NOT WANT! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cheerio Boy ( 82178 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:08PM (#38062322) Homepage Journal

    What the hell?? I mean why would anyone...oh yeah...greed. Forgot about that for a moment.

    I sincerely hope that this does not get made.

    Anybody got any Daleks or Cybermen we can sic on these guys?
  • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:09PM (#38062332)

    Because the Doctor Who movie that we made with the Canadians was great!

    Actually- it wasn't that bad- but it wasn't Doctor Who. It was something else entirely.

    Really, it all depends on how they execute it- they can make it good or they can make a real hash of it. I'll probably watch it regardless.

    • by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:15PM (#38062418)

      Please don't blame Canada for that movie. We didn't write it, we didn't direct it, we didn't produce it. We just provided facilities and most of the cast and crew, not the creative team that actually made the film.

      • Please don't blame Canada for that movie. We didn't write it, we didn't direct it, we didn't produce it. We just provided facilities and most of the cast and crew, not the creative team that actually made the film.

        You're right- it was basically made in Canada around the same time that a lot of US TV series were being made in Canada for reasons of cost- it was still made by a US company with the US market in mind.

        They compromised it a lot to appeal to the Americans and it still didn't succeed- America is such a big market that they're used to getting stuff that panders specifically do them, and IMHO it's clear that they will never be able to make Doctor Who appeal to a *mainstream* (i.e. non-"cult") US mass audience

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      No Dr Who movie has really been Dr Who. I mean the Cushing movies he was an Earth born inventor with the last name Who, and this was before all the copyright BS really hit the fan. In fact any movie with Bernard Cribbins in it is not really a valid movie.

      Doctor Who: The Movie, was a weakly veiled attempt at a reboot pilot episode, and for the love of all that is holy, it had Eric "Best of the Best" Roberts as the Master...such a bad decision. It was obviously targetted at the American audience.

      This next

  • Do not want! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SirGarlon ( 845873 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:10PM (#38062344)
    The last thing Doctor Who needs is the Hollywood treatment. Please tell me this is a bad dream.
  • by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:11PM (#38062346) Homepage

    Take a short miniseries and stretch it out to a full series to milk it and make the plot run like molasses. Add in a lot of mindless action with big explosions and helicopter chases, because that's what American shows look like, right?

    I'm afraid of what they're going to do to Doctor Who, but if Torchwood was any example, keep Hollywood's dirty hands off it.

    • "Take your stinking paws off it, you damn dirty producer!"
    • by mikael ( 484 )

      It's probably more a case of "every other movie has these effects included, so we have to do the same".

      So they end up trying to weave a plot line around a fixed set of visual effects current at the time.

    • by Hatta ( 162192 )

      Miracle Day was still better than the first two seasons of Torchwood. WTF was that?!?

  • Just Say No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jIyajbe ( 662197 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:12PM (#38062362)

    No no no, for the love of God, no!!!

    A major aspect of the show is the fact that it is small-screen. Its roots are in the campiness that the early shows had, and that occurred because of the tiny budget and fast turnaround. The effect of that can still been seen today.

    The campiness and fun will be eliminated in a Hollywood blockbuster treatment, and it will turn into just another sex-and-explosions vehicle.

    • Exactly!

      I haven't watched Doctor Who since Tom Bakker played the good Doctor (although that has more to do with time and priorities than quibbles with the quality of the show). What I loved about Doctor Who was that it was campy, it was hokey...but it didn't take itself too seriously and as a result, it was fun. Hollywood has an entirely different feel than the Doctor Who. I can't help but fear that Hollywood will try to make it too modern, hip, sexy, trendy...and will lose the essence of what made Do
  • Everyone, relax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy@tpno-co.oLISPrg minus language> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:15PM (#38062416) Homepage

    Dr Who has been around for 50 years. It has survived pretty much anything you could throw at it. It will survive hollywood.

    I have to wonder, however, if the folks doing the market research realize just how adverse Dr Who fans will be to a big budget movie. One of the appeals of Dr Who is the low production value of it, and the ability to take risks that goes along with that. It's unconventional, it's interesting. These are two attributes that hollywood has demonstrated a knack for destroying. Further, one of better attributes of Dr Who has always been it's "continuity" ( which is hilarious in and of itself ), of it's long scope story arcs. Again, not a "movie" thing.

    A Dr Who movie will need to somehow work in the back story, build an interesting plot and come to a conclusion. All within 2 hours. Unless they plan for a series of movies, which would make more sense. That way they can build the backstory and get the plot rolling, then continue in the second movie and finish up in a third. But that might be too much of an investment for a relatively unknown franchise ( unknown to anyone outside geekdom at any rate ).

    • Re:Everyone, relax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:26PM (#38062592)

      Well- take a look at the last Star Trek movie (and the next one coming out) - that was not designed for Star Trek fans.

      It was written for the Non-Star Trek fans. (Heck, my wife hates Star Trek but enjoyed that movie).

      Hollywood knows the real Dr. Who fans will watch anyway out of curiosity- but they will write it for those who are not fans... just like the last Star Trek.

      Win/win for Hollywood.

      • Heck, my wife hates Star Trek but enjoyed that movie

        Do you think it is wise to broadcast your motive to the entire net while the police is still investigating her brutal and prolonged death?

      • Re:Everyone, relax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot@spad.[ ]uk ['co.' in gap]> on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:14PM (#38063274) Homepage

        The difference being that when Star Trek was released, the Trek franchise was pretty much dead in the water, whereas Doctor Who is currently pretty damn successful; it's either going to have to be canon (and thus a commercial failure) or non-canon and thus not really Doctor Who.

        • Re:Everyone, relax (Score:4, Informative)

          by Thumper_SVX ( 239525 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:21PM (#38065644) Homepage

          The difference being that when Star Trek was released, the Trek franchise was pretty much dead in the water, whereas Doctor Who is currently pretty damn successful; it's either going to have to be canon (and thus a commercial failure) or non-canon and thus not really Doctor Who.

          Not really sure I agree with that. It's quite possible to create a canon Doctor Who that would be commercially successful. To my mind, the only piece of Doctor Who that could be turned into a movie though would be the beginning. That is; the point at which The Doctor stole the Tardis... or when the Tardis stole him depending on your POV of course :) There's no reason at all he couldn't do so as a young man and through the course of even a metric ton of movies grow into a crotchety old man who will eventually end up in England in the 1960's. There's no telling how much travel he did prior to the beginning of the TV series... could be a long time. That would be canon, has the potential to be a good movie (or more), doesn't restrict itself to Earth in any particular time period (how long did it take before The Dr. discovered his soft spot for Humans?) and doesn't need to get into that annoyingly complicated regeneration thing.

          There's certainly a lot of potential there for an intelligent but less wise Doctor, learning how to fly the Tardis for the first time and perhaps dealing with the consequences of having stolen it.

          And for the record, I DO agree that Star Trek was moribund due to mismanagement... but even as a fan of TOS, TNG and DS9 (and have a soft spot for Enterprise even though it was not great) I actually rather enjoyed the movie because I went in with no preconceived notions. I for one look forward to a sequel.

    • Wait you think Hollywood producers actually care what the fans of the original think when they remake? How many people who liked Douglas Adam's books thought positive things about the movie? How many DBZ fans were happy with the movie? Heck even when it's the same creator of the original they don't care about what the fans of the original think, just ask George Lucas. Hollywood is about taking an idea, dumbing it down low enough that the fans of jersey shore can follow it, and targetting it towards the larg
    • I dunno. I always considered a Hollywood movie adaptation the death knell for a tv series. Consider the following list []: []. Most of those movies were made at or after the end of the series. I don't think it's because the tv series became stale, but rather that movie-fying something changes the criteria by which it is enjoyed. I find it difficult to articulate how it ch
    • I totally agree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by negatonium ( 1103503 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:25PM (#38063428)
      Doctor Who has passed into the realm of Modern Mythology now. Just like Dracula, Superman, and Star Trek has now become part of our "mythology". These characters and stories may take a rest from time to time but there will always be someone to come along and retell/re-imagine/re-work them. Doctor Who is just too fertile a ground for good stories to leave too long. Heck, we are still getting milage from Sinbad, Hercules, and Atlantis! The theatrical Who movies of the '60s didn't kill a much younger series... no worries here.
  • is Captain Mike Yates.

    Seriously, though... a movie could be great, or it could be terrible, and I would be ok with either result. If it's good, then huzzah! I'll watch it and enjoy it. If it's terrible, then yay! We can ignore it as far as canon goes (like that terrible 80's thing... Paul McGann made a good Doctor, the Tardis set was awesome, the reinvented theme was ok... the rest sucked goat ass).

    My big fear is that it will be kind of decent. Too good to ignore, but too bad to really energize the franchis

  • Hugh Laurie (Score:5, Interesting)

    by invid ( 163714 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:22PM (#38062520)
    I would only watch it if Hugh Laurie played the Doctor.
    • Thats might qactually be interesting to see....I could buy him as the Doctor.

      The biggest problem, is if they screw with the known rules of the Dr Who universe, and what happens with the TV series in all of this?

      • What "known rules of the Doctor Who universe"? Practically every episode either conveniently forgets established events, or retcons them right out of existence. As long as they give us an alien with two hearts who travels through time in a blue box, they can't very well damage the shredded tatters of continuity.

        I do agree that Hugh Laurie would be a great Doctor. I'd pay eight bucks to see that.

    • by invid ( 163714 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:12PM (#38063248)
      Plot Synopsis: Start in Victorian England. The Doctor (Hugh Laurie) is helping Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) to stop Moriarty (Alan Rickman) who has kidnapped Ada Lovelace (Angelina Jolie) and has stolen H.G. Well's (Zach Galifianakis) time machine. Moriarty goes into the future and uses Ada's knowledge of programming to take over the cybermen. Combining his evil genius with his robot army he goes to war against the only force that can stop him, the Daleks. The Doctor has a moral quandary: try to stop the war or let these two forces destroy each other. Lots of big explosions.
      • I think I saw that movie. They called it "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" I think. It was horrible... I didn't finish.

    • by blair1q ( 305137 )

      Tough. You'll get Tom Cruise, and you'll like it.

      (P.S. I concur. Laurie would be an awesome idea. And it gives you the option of casting Stephen Fry as the Master, if you want to take it several million parsecs into funnytown.)

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:23PM (#38062526) Journal

    I personally am looking forward to a bunch of people stumbling around with a human inventor whom they call "Doctor Who" as they remake one of the more pedestrian and overused storylines. That would be so much better than, say, bringing back Paul McGann (who got robbed in my opinion) and filling in the final time war and destruction of Gallifrey that occurred between Doctor Who (1996) and Rose (2005) but was never filmed.

  • by Deadplant ( 212273 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:23PM (#38062530)

    Dr Who has already been ruined. They may as well sell it for scrap now.
    The latest season has been an utter disgrace.

    I'm a big fan, I've seen every episode.
    (those early black and white ones are pretty campy)

    The recent episode about the fat bumbling idiot with the talking baby was the straw that broke the camel's back.
    "herp a derp... I'm a fat moron, look, I walked into a wall and knocked over a display-case! hahahah, now my baby is making cutting remarks about me! Oh dear! aliens! oh dear, I've bumbled and stumbled into their grasp, how will I ever escape? Maybe if I really *really* love my baby the power of my love will make them explode! KABOOM! yay! it worked! *happily ever after*"
    I haven't been able to watch it again since that day.

  • It could work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:23PM (#38062536)

    I read the article which provided the argument against turning Dr. Who into a movie, and I disagree with most of the points. A few comments:

    1. Length. TV episodes are one hour, which requires a tight plot. A movie would add an extra hour, which the writer of the article claims would ruin that. He says he's from the Tom Baker generation (I was too), but he seems to have forgotten that during the Tom Baker era, the show was a bunch of miniseries. Much longer than a movie. Even now, there are plenty of two-part and three-part episodes, and really the only difference between that and a movie is that in TV there's an incentive to add a cliffhanger each hour. Turning it into a movie actually gives them more freedom because there isn't that incentive.

    2. Sexualization of the characters. First, this isn't necessary even in a Hollywood film, so it might not happen. Second, he complains about the Doctor getting younger and younger to give him more sex appeal, but that's already happening on the TV show. Hollywood has nothing to do with it. Third, in the latest incarnation there's already sexual chemistry between the Doctor and his companion. Granted, it's all misdirection and misleading the audience into thinking there's more there than there really is, and other than one kiss, Amy has been completely faithful to Rory. But you can't deny that the sexual chemistry between the Doctor and Amy is there. Again, this is all without Hollywood.

    3. Cheap sets and props. True, that's been a hallmark of Dr. Who from the beginning, and some of it still remains in the latest series. However, there's plenty of high tech special effects these days in the show. Will the big screen change that ratio in favor of the high tech at the expense of the cheap? No doubt. But nostalgia aside, who really cares?

    So all of his concerns are things that are already happening in the show. Could Hollywood blow it? Sure. But if so, it won't be because of any of the things he complains about. The smartest thing for Hollywood to do would be to hire the writers from some of the better episodes of the past few years. Stick with what makes the show great and let the Hollywood format support the story rather than supplant it.

    • Re:It could work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:30PM (#38062652)

      Second, he complains about the Doctor getting younger and younger to give him more sex appeal, but that's already happening on the TV show.

      Are you seriously suggesting that Matt Smith was chosen for sex appeal? I highly doubt there are many women who would ooooh and ahhh over Matt Smith on the streets... those that would- only because he is famous. In Matt Smith they picked the ugliest man possible... but, I personally think he is a fantastic actor and plays the part well. Probably the best recent doctor.

      Third, in the latest incarnation there's already sexual chemistry between the Doctor and his companion.

      Not just his companion- but several other human's- including Queen Bess- and River Song.

  • "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."

    Isn't this a good enough reason not to do it at all?
    • Not to mention: bigger arena?

      The show is decades old, and seen globally. I encounter people in here the USA who have never seen it, but still know generally of "Doctor Who" and that it involves time travel. And it's on the BBC, one of the biggest networks in the world.

      Mr Hollywood DoucheGuy acts like it's some little production on a local station like MST3K's early days.

  • by DaFallus ( 805248 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:31PM (#38062656)
    Uh, isn't Doctor Who fairly sexualized already (especially the 10th Doctor)? I mean, they have lesbian characters, guys from the 51st century who will have sex with anything, Amy Pond wanted the Doctor to "sort" her. Or is this simply an American vs British thing?

    I figure an American version of Doctor Who would be more like this []
  • ... since he was so faithful to the concept of John Constaine, Keanu Reeves will be cast as the Doctor.

    One of his companions will be a street-smart, wisecracking black man.

    One of his companions will be a 20-something slacker genius computer hacker (hollywood-style)

    The third companion will be Mary Jane Smith, played by either Christina Ricci or Angelina Jolie

    The hacker will manage to hack into the heart of the TARDIS by guessing its password, which will be "TARDIS"

    The TARDIS will be updated so that it's cham

    • by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

      The hacker will manage to hack into the heart of the TARDIS by guessing its password, which will be "TARDIS".

      Wait, that's way too obvious, even for the USA market. Let's make the password "SIDRAT".

      • The hacker will manage to hack into the heart of the TARDIS by guessing its password, which will be "TARDIS".

        Wait, that's way too obvious, even for the USA market. Let's make the password "SIDRAT".

        But... everyone knows the password is Crimson Eleven Delight Petrichor.

    • And the enemy will be a giant spider.

  • when they play it on the TVGuide channel. Beside that, I'd be happy to disavow such a thing. Doctor Who is strictly a product of Great Britain, and it should stay that. I'm an American, and I know absolutely that Hollywood would turn such a franchise into an oozing pile of PC trash.
  • Let Hollywood do whatever they want and call if non-canon, like the Peter Cushing movies. They didn't destroy the franchise. Ignore it, and it never happened. Just like the Hitchhiker's Guide, Puppet Masters, Thunderbirds, and anything that claims to associated with that Star Trek series with Shatner.

    If anything, a Hollywood movie will get people to watch the TV show when they realize how much better it is.

  • by KeithIrwin ( 243301 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:10PM (#38063216)

    I predict that this will be like Coupon the Movie all over again. []

  • by SirGarlon ( 845873 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @03:28PM (#38063472)

    I see a lot of comments in this threat that Doctor Who has already jumped the shark. I concur, and I haven't even seen anything later than David Tennant. When in your opinion did Doctor Who go irrevocably off track?

    In my opinion it was way back with Sylvester McCoy when the seventh Doctor blew up Skaro's sun with something-or-other of Omega. I just can't handle the idea of The Doctor committing genocide -- and smirking while he does it. Contrast with the fourth Doctor's moral dilemma in the Genesis of the Daleks, and you can see the quality of the writing had already sunk very from from its peak.

    At this point I would rather let it die and remember it fondly, the way it was.

  • by Any Web Loco ( 555458 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:10PM (#38064372) Homepage
    Bring back Christopher Eccleston and it might have a shot.
  • by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @04:47PM (#38064982)

    - and Hollywood could pull something off and make it work in such a way that it appeals to both "Hollywood" audience and the Dr. Who faithfull.

    The trick would be letting the glamour and the hollywoodization fall on the companions. Let the companions develop the love interests etc, and be the eye candy- just don't make that the main part of the story.

    I think America can enjoy a quirky excentric professor type Dr. Who, like the original doctors portrayed.

    I think they could remake the original Dr. Who episode "an unearthly child" into the film- just make the girl older- high school age and let her be the "coming of age" character that Hollywood so loves.

    They just have to balance it right- so as to not make the "Hollywood side" of things the main part of the story.

    Good special effects needn't ruin the story if encorporated correctly. What the '96 movie did wrong was turn Dr. Who into an action hero. He never should be.

    It's OK to have a companion that gets into a little bit of action- as long as that is not over emphasised. Think Perry Mason's P.I. that would get into a few action roles- but it was never about him- it was about Perry Mason.

  • by renegadesx ( 977007 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @05:42PM (#38066038)

    This is going to be a disaster. Look there is a vast difference in styles between British and American shows that just don't cross over very well. Im not saying American TV is bad (reality TV is very bad but thats a worldwide problem) but whenever the Americans try to adopt another countries show it loses what made it appealing in the first place.

    I remember the horrible mess that was the US version of The Office, as well as the Australian show Kath & Kim.

    I remember Hollywood wanted to mess with Red Dwarf, replace The Cat with a female, which alone would have ruined it. What?

    Please America, you do you're own thing well and other countries do their thing well. When you try to "Americanize" an overseas franchise you kill the charm that made it good in the first place.

  • by Commontwist ( 2452418 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @06:22PM (#38066672)

    1. Daleks. Use the color-coded Daleks but use their funny appearance more deceivingly and realistically lethal. I mean, much of their bodies are supposed to be highly sophisticated tech not people hidden inside. Use it. (Turn all those half-balls on the side into hunter-seeker spider-like drones?)

    2. The Tardis is big. Really, really big. Except lately we never see much of what's in it. (One exception was when the Tardis computer was extracted) Earlier series often showed the swimming pool, personal rooms, walk in closets, the warning room, etc. If Hollywood's doing it at least take advantage to show off the greatness that is the Tardis. Explore the concept. The Doctor is a scientist and time/space traveller and he doesn't have a personal lab or nic-nac room inside?

    3. The Time Lords. I was a little annoyed that the Time Lords all become Evil and Had To Be Banished. Maybe it's because I liked Romana and the times the Doctor visited but, again, have Gallefry live again.

    4. The Master. I loved the look of the old Masters. The new one seems to have lost much to the Time Wars. Make him intelligent Evil Overlord who pays attention to the Things I Will Not Do When I Am an Evil Overlord. Heck, have him READING it during the movie-now that would be funny!

    5. Companions. Have a more useful seeming Companion mixed in with one or two that needs to be rescued. Not too much so but Spock and McCoy were not captain of the ship and they rocked.

    6. K-9. Classic reborn but no real dogs please. Or perhaps mix him with the T-2000 and make him a K-9 with monomolecular teeth. Woof!

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"