Steven Moffat has said the following:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbi...on-t-be-a-film


I agree, hardly any point in there being a movie version.

Perhaps if Disney has a deal with BBC after they made Saving Mr Banks, Disney could agree to make a Doctor Who big screen movie. I hope it will going to be a box office success in the future

I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me the "story", such as it is, is just SM "stirring the pot". i.e. It's part of his job to keep DW in the media, especially in this lull between series and before the next cast departure/arrival when there's no "real" DW news.

Like this, or like this?

I don't think Moffat has much a say of it - if he's being interviewed, he has to answer the questions he's given, right? Surely it's more a case of newspapers knowing that Doctor Who is popular and trying to make something out of nothing when there's no real DW news?

Unlikely. Dr Who is an original BBC production, which kills all possibilities including that possibility.

The BBC is generally not allowed to adapt any of its original drama productions for the big screen. Not even to option or license any to a third-party for an adaptation. They did try pushing some boundaries now and then, but as far as I know, they've never succeeded well enough to go beyond the discussion stage.

Edited:

In case someone's curious, the two Dr Who / Peter Cushing films are adaptations of Terry Nation's novels.

Both frighteningly close for comfort sebbie

If the BBC wanted to make a movie version of the show, they would. They're doing it now with Absolutely Fabulous. They've made movie versions of their own TV shows in the past too.

I think the more honest answer is that Doctor Who probably isn't currently set up for a movie. It may have worked with David Tennant's more affable and romantic Doctor, but I think Capaldi's grumpy and rude version would be a hard sell at the box office. And I'm saying that with a lot of love - I like him. But I think he works for TV.

As far as I'm aware Terry Nation only ever wrote two novels neither of which was a Doctor Who story.

The films were adapted from the TV scripts Nation had written.


Dad's Army film made in 1971.


Edit
Just saw that they are currently making a new Dad's Army film.

Dad's Army (although a retelling of the entire series),
Are You Being Served
Steptoe and Son
Absolutely Fabulous (in production)
Mrs. Brown's Boys

all BBC shows turned into films, and with AbFab and Mrs Brown's Boys, it was BBC Films that made them! There is no reason why Doctor Who couldn't be made into a film. They could make any number of films surrounding the 8th Doctor's adventures. Fans aren't stupid. They'd know the difference.

If they did they would have to show them on TV too shortly after as essentially they would be part of the story.
Also the first episode last series was essentially a film being shown at the cinema so was Day of the Doctor, although I think Day of the Doctor at least should have had a week or two at the cinema and maybe Deep Breath should have too? At least until the next episode came on TV anyway.

Don't know about some of the earlier creations, but I'm pretty sure the Ab Fab characters are owned by Jennifer Saunders or her production company - same for Mrs. Brown. So I expect there isn't the same conflict there.

Edited: ^ Snap, but yes, you're right.


I knew I shouldn't have been so lazy with my previous post. I was anxious to keep it as concise as possible (I'm known to write horribly long-winded posts). I'll try to make it as simple as possible, mostly to prevent my tired brain from killing itself. (I'm on night shift so it's well past midnight now.)

We need to consider this question: Who's the copyright holder?

I'm willing to bet that all those you listed weren't/aren't owned by the BBC. They commission a TV series, sometimes make it an in-house production and broadcast it, but it doesn't mean they actually own the concept. This usually belongs to whomever created or devised the concept. In some cases, creators sell their ownership to the BBC and in other cases, they don't. It varies from one to another.

For example:
The BBC doesn't own Absolutely Fabulous itself. The TV series themselves belong to the BBC, but not the concept of it. As far as I know, it's currently owned by creator Jennifer Saunders (and maybe Dawn French if she hadn't sold her share to Saunders yet), which gives her a right to option or license it to a third-party. Any production company. This includes BBC Films.

When the BBC does own a concept, they usually aren't allowed to adapt it for the big screen. I actually don't know why. So many gave me different explanations on how the stipulation came about. I don't know which is accurate, I'm afraid.

I hope that makes sense. Sorry for not being that great in being articulate, though. Thanks.

Disney would completely ruin it! It would seem too Americanised, not to mention a complete insult towards the BBC! Especially Sydney Newman, Verity Lambert plus RTD and SM!

No! No! No! Never in a million years!

A big screen movie would be very welcome, but NOT Disney!

How did Amicus get away with it in the two movies in the sixties? They may have been 'based on an idea by Terry Nation' - but they also credited "Based on the BBC TV Series" in the opening credits!

Don't forget Porridge! A movie version was made in 1979. Here it is, to prove it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuvfEgjPY4

The movie was set after the second series, but before the end of the third, as both Fletcher and Godber were still in Slade Prison as inmates, sharing the same cell.

Godber left Slade Prison in the final episode of series three, whearas Fletcher didn't leave until the beginning of the spin-off, Going Straight.

The two Peter Cushing movies were a remake of the TV Dalek stories.


Dr Who and The Daleks was remade from the Daleks episodes in 1963.

Dr Who Dalek Invasion Earth 2150AD was remade from The Dalek Invasion Of Earth in 1964.

They were basically rip-offs. When watched on DVD nowadays, they are laughable! Especially with a seven year old Susan, as supposed to a fifteen year old as we had in the TV version.

I've got the two movies on DVD. The recent releases from 2013 that have been completely remastered. The extras aren't all that though, as the sound on the two interviews have been screwed up. You can't hear what they are saying at times.

I do quite like the fact that the movies are in colour. I also really like the Daleks and their voices. Don't like it when they try to exterminate and smoke shoots out of their exterminator guns. I prefer the 70s/80s exterminations more.

I think the films would have to be self-contained to have any chance of being profitable. I could imagine the first movie would have to be something like Rose - with everything explained, so as not to assume audiences know what is going on. It could end up like the 'Bond' series, with a different 'Who Girl' for every film!

It's not that they're not allowed but that they (wrongly) think it can't be done.

Well it could.

Easily.

Just do a massive multi-Doctor movie featuring all thirteen Doctors and a massive Dalek invasion which could result in the end of the universe.

You have a movie right there that people would go and see. Especially if David Tennant was to be used quite a bit in advertising.

I doubt they'd go down the extreme fanwank route.

Why not?

People want to see massive team-up movies now. They could even go down the shared universe route like Marvel and give each Doctor his own solo movie.

I really doubt it.

And I do think DW, if they ever do a movie, should try and make it unique. Make it standalone, break the mould of what every other film/series is doing.

Doctor Who did 'shared universe' before anyone else. If anything, Marvel are copying Doctor Who; Doctor Who would just be continuing a idea it has already explored, only in a movie universe.

Your fanwank idea isn't ever going to happen (thankfully).