November 14th, 2011
|10:58 pm - Bond-type franchise|
I know Who fans will already be all over this, but it might be of more general interest. Variety, the film industry magazine says:
"Harry Potter" director David Yates is teaming up with the BBC to turn its iconic sci-fi TV series "Doctor Who" into a bigscreen franchise.
That would be more like James Bond than Harry Potter, I would think. In any case, it seems just a straw in the wind at this stage. I think Variety are bigging it up, as they will.
What do you think? Here's my guideline to whether it will be bearable - older actor good, younger actor, bad.
ETA Ah, that's interesting, on this metafilter thread, some people have said that if Doctor Who is in the British folk tradition (and I am thinking Robin Hood, King Arthur, Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, and Bond and Potter) then everyone should be able to have a go, and make their own interpretation. I agree with this, though perhaps it is too soon, while the original source is still being written.
Part of me is saying "Oh hell, I hope not!" and part of me is saying "Heck, what's one more variant in a sea of variants, it's not as if it hasn't been done before (Peter Cushing)."
Yes, and each film is of its time. I am afraid I think that if the studio put up a lot of money for it, they will demand that it sticks very close to the mainstream formula of big explosions and conventional heroism. I'll just ignore it in that case.
Define "original source".
Anyway, Doctor Who Magazine reckons this is a lot of fuss about nothing: people have been talking about a Who movie for ages, and there don't seem to be any actual new developments.
Yes, I think Variety might be over-stating the case, because I think they tend to be a bit over-excitable.
I'm expecting an announcement of Justin Bieber starring in "High School WhoSical"...
You bad, wicked, evil woman! No, not really. It's just that it's a good thing I wasn't drinking from that glass of water at the time or I would have had to award you the Order of the Splutter.
I have to laugh, but it's a frightening thought
They are all different, but perhaps some natural tendency of human beings causes them to become more like each other over time (I mean more like each other in the way they are housed in the brain, not in content). I thought of a few other examples like Peter Pan and Robinson Crusoe. I wonder what the future life of modern classics will be. Acted out round the camp fire in a post-apocalyptic wasteland possibly.
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 08:29 am (UTC)|| |
**older actor good, younger actor, bad***
We always wanted Alun Armstrong instead of Matt Smith anyway.
No, really? I never thought of him. Amusing to think of worst possible casting. Staying with English male movie actors, it's a toss-up between Hugh Grant and Jason Statham.
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 08:54 am (UTC)|| |
Sean Bean could be good value.
Or Alan Rickman: "Cut...no Alan, remember you're supposed to be the good guy in this one...."
Hugh Grant was offered the role before Christopher Eccleston. Having seen his brief performance as the Doctor in The Curse of Fatal Death, I think he could have been really good.
The age of the actor doesn't bother me - I'd rather see someone like James McAvoy than a generic Hollywood aging leading man in the role. Having read [i]The Nth Doctor[/i], a book about the previous film attempts, what I think is more important is who writes it. If it's someone who understands the way the way it works, then good, if it's someone who'll just force it into the generic hero's journey template, then bad.
I think you are right about that. Though I guess what would probably happen is that writer x (let's say Gaiman) produces a great script, and it is progressively wrecked by editorial decisions imposed from on high. Like a tearful scene with Doctor Who's father. Noooo
At least in that case, you'd start with a good script. Some of the synopses of proposed scripts in that book were frighteningly bad even before a producer had got hold of them.
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 11:43 am (UTC)|| |
it is progressively wrecked by editorial decisions imposed from on high. Like a tearful scene with Doctor Who's father.
Yes, because there's a total dearth of media exploring the father-son dynamic so we desperately need another one.
This was certainly the view of some of the people who were proposing Doctor Who movies in the 90s. One of the concepts that was in play for a long while was the Doctor going on a quest to find his long-lost father, a Time Lord known as Ulysses.
Somehow, the TV movie with Paul McGann doesn't seem so bad now.
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 12:18 pm (UTC)|| |
I can't think of a more boring story to tell about the Doctor. Well, I probably can, but I'm not proposing to make a film of them. Still, more reasons why Doctor Who was better in the 80s than the 90s.
I haven't seen the Paul McGann film in a very long time, but if nothing else, at least it had Sylvester McCoy in it.
Doctor Who was great in the 90s!
In book form.
a quest to find his long-lost father
god spare us
BTW - Did you see that Forbrydelsen is back on Saturday! *is excited*
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 11:24 am (UTC)|| |
The trouble with that plan is ENTIRELY summed up in the words 'David Yates'.
|Date:||November 15th, 2011 11:44 am (UTC)|| |
"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," he explained.
Edited at 2011-11-15 11:45 am (UTC)
I know you can't bear him. I think his Potter films got better as they went on.
|Date:||November 16th, 2011 09:21 pm (UTC)|| |
Mmm. I'll believe it when I'm eating popcorn in front of it.
It's a bit dodgy though, in the same way that it was a bit dodgy when Superman films were being made whilst Smallville was on air. And Smallville was just a riff on canon, not actual canon.