1) Didn't Russel T Davies leave the Dr. Who writing team?
2) JJ Abrams is (and deserves to be) a science fiction legend. From what I've seen of the Star Trek movie it looks quite good, but then I've not seen any of the Star Trek TV shows or films before so I can't make a comparison.

Well that's the key question isn't it?

Experience. Miracle Day was plodding and melodramatic. Old Torchwood wasn't exactly the peak of its genre, but it was better than that.

Although you're probably right that it wouldn't be handled the same way as the McGann movie, this is still the closest precedent we have... a supernatural episode of Due South. Not an intrinsically bad thing, but far too straightforward and generic to compare with anything else in the canon.

Also - popular as it may be, the American fan base is still very small in comparison to the other franchises we've been bringing into the argument. This would make it more likely that the American heroic archetype (Shane, Dirty Harry, Wyatt Earp) would begin to creep into the Doctor's character.

I'm not denying the concept that it would be possible for Americans to make a really good show. Another useful point of comparison would be Battlestar Galactica 2004 - that was almost 100% excellence plot-wise. The problem isn't with talent - it's with pressure from production management teams.

BSG/Batman/Bond/Torchwood all utelise the American ideal of heroism to start with. If the American version faltered, tell me you couldn't see the producers getting round a table and saying, 'How can we make the Doctor more "relatable"'.

Have I made your skin crawl yet?

Sorry but on what basis does JJ deserve to be a science fiction legend ?

I'm with eggshell on that one. Nothing to tickle my fancy in his back catalogue. All a bit too focused on brooding looks and pointless twists for me.

Ahem.


WHAAAAAAT? Ok, as a stand alone movie, or reboot, its great. Good to see the original characters back, good acting and CGI, and good plot. But as a Star Trek film, its CR*P with a capital C R A and P.

Go out and watch some proper Star trek, then you'll see.

Good point, well made. I'm going to do something with my life.

Right, it's multi-reply time, in an effort to not look like I'm trying to inflate my own thread (so to speak):


A parallel American version with an all-different cast and crew. It would work just like having two versions of Camelot or Sherlock Homes running simultaneously in different countries does - perfectly well.

Don't worry about your reaction, Granny, going by the rest of the thread I think an emotional objection is the only substantial one.


Nope, that's exactly what I want. I want to see what a different cultural viewpoint produces when applied to making Who.

You'll notice in my original post I said that I couldn't make a comparison so please don't have a go at me

Maybe legend was an exageration, but Fringe is amazing and whilst not strictly science fiction it draws multiple ideas from the genre and contains a large amount of fictional/unproven science. I hear Lost started off good and then went downhill. Many of his productions are critically acclaimed. Just because you don't like him or think that his work isn't up to the standards of previous films doesn't mean that he isn't good at what he does.But I'm up against a load of mortally offended trekkies, so I should probably give up on this argument before it's too late.

I wan't really challenging the legend bit based on Trek, whilst I object to writing off decades of canon with one glossy, plot hole ridden film, I am not that much of a Trek fan that I'll lose sleep over it.

However I don't think any of his other work qualifies him as a legend-- he's an adapt marketer and producer of style over substance--Lost failed to deliver on its promises, Cloverfield was stupid and forgettable and Super 8 was just meh. Alias and Fringe got good reviews --as did Lost--but I think legend is OTT.

A sci-fi legend for me in TV terms would be somebody like Rod Serling --Abrams isn't quite there yet.

I don't see how that would work. What about continuity with regenerations?

There can only be one Doctor at once. It's not the same as Sherlock Holmes where there is one character who is portrayed in different films by different actors.

With the DW the actor portraying the different Doctors is identified with that particular regeneration.

Even in the Movie they got the Seventh Doctor in so it would be authentic when he regenerated into the Eighth.

If there were simultaneous British and American versions of the (say) 12th Doctor, which would be authentic? It would become chaos. Where would it all end?

You''ve misunderstood my point. To the American audience, the British nature of the character is fundamental to the formula of the show.

The Doctor now sits alongside established fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes or James Bond. A US audience would no more accept an American Doctor Who than an American James Bond.

as a full blooded American who had the wonderful pleasure of marring a Brit and getting to live in England for a few years before coming back to the states...I only have one thing to say...

PLEASE NO American version!!

Let us send money to BBC to help out or something - anything. I don't mind them coming over for a visit and so on...but please not based here. I don't think I could take it

DW is already very popular in America. Just go on www.thatguywiththeglasses.com, a hillarious website that reviews movies, shows, comics etc run by Americans, and they're all mad about Doctor Who.
That being said...
There's no reason why it couldn't work. Torchwood is a very different show, and just because the American version wasn't so brilliant of that dosen't mean it woulnd't be of this.
However, there's two ways they can potentially do it.
Cast a youny, hunky bloke as the Doctor, with a beautiful assistant, as we all know if you aren't a supermodel in the states you've no chance of getting acting work), which would be silly. The Doctor isn't supposed to be a hunk!
The other way is to cast an older, respected actor, which could potentially work. You could still have the hot assistant (we've done it over here) but the Doctor would be the old, wise bloke that is his character.
Then you need to think about how the Americans ruined one of the best sci fi shows to come out of the UK in decades and they bloody destroyed it!
So... keep it British imo. We don't need another version. We have it.

I think the 2009 reboot is the best thing to come out of star trek since warth of khan.

I still don't get how the regenerations would tie in.

We have the 11th Doctor now. If the Americans made a series with another actor playing the Doctor, would it be the 12th? Or another version of the 11th?

Matt is the 11th Doctor. Surely there can't be two 11ths?

And when Matt leaves, will the next British Doctor be the 12th, or the 13th, because there is already a 12th in America....etc etc.

It's not like other programmes, where a character is played by an actor (as in Sherlock Holmes). In DW the actor is the character....that's why they invented regeneration.

Does this make sense, or do other people think it's unimportant?

Sherlock Holmes is British. James Bond is British (well, half Swiss, technically). The Doctor is from the planet Gallifrey in the constellation of Kasterborous.

There's nothing intrinsically British about the concept. The British production has a sensibility that reflects its origin, yes. And so should an American version.

Doctor Who in Britain is part of the culture. Doctor Who in America is a quaint British novelty. Why shouldn't they have their own version that can relate to on the same level we do to ours?

Just to clarify - the first American Doctor would be their First Doctor. It'd be an entirely separate timeline and universe. (Until the crossover episodes, of course. )


And with that I'll have to bow out of the thread, as (a) it's nearly Christmas and (b) I think by this point in the thread I must either just not making my point clearly enough, or it wasn't worth making.

To summarise my position - an American version of Doctor Who produced at the same time as the British version, but with an entirely different cast, crew and timeline, wouldn't hurt the British show one bit, and I can't see the logic in automatically opposing it.

It's very unlikely to happen anyway. Well, not until I get to be showrunner and that's at least ten years away, realistically speaking.

And a Merry Christmas to all of you at home! Hmm? Yes? Hmm.

No, you're right, it's incredibly important that continuity is maintained. I am totally against an American version being made, but if it had to be, say for reasons of costs, then either the current actor in the role must continue or there must be a regeneration into the "next" Doctor. The same applies if they make this movie that has been in the news recently. You cannot have two different Doctors at the same time, unless you tell untold stories of a previous Doctor, say the 10th and have the same actor who played him originally, reprise his role.

Ah, I see now. Though I still don't agree.

Merry Christmas, Lazlo, to you and yours!