I think he's on record saying the opposite to that - that any movie would have to be a part of the TV show, using the current TV Doctor. That's what I thought anyway.

Loss of Top Gear? But it's still here, isn't it? They haven't done away with it totally, surely?

The last I knew, earlier in the week, TG was sill in question. It wasn't clear if James May and Richard Hammond were to come back next year for another series.

Interesting times ahead - we've already had the announcement of BBC Studios, this proposed hybrid wing of the BBC which will allow them to pursue production with a more commercial intent (subject to government and Trust approval), I wonder if this 8 year plan is purely creative or has business aspects too.

One sore point with a movie would be that, assuming the intent would be for the tv and film to support each other, a movie would show up the relatively parsimonious production standards of the TV show.

So perhaps a move for the tv show into co-production which would allow more money to be funneled in, priming the pumpkin ready for a leap onto the big screen?

I suspect it would be the other way around with the movie budget benefiting the TV show. This could be a way to provide the series with a new TARDIS set and some sophisticated monster props without increasing the TV budget.

I'm glad Steven Moffat has lost in his mission to exterminate the chances of a Doctor Who movie. It would make a perfect shared cinematic universe; there's just so many characters that could be used for one. In fact, you could argue the show has already done it on TV with The Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood alongside the main show between 2006 and 2011.

I disagree. A movie should do the opposite and feature every Doctor ever teaming up to take on a universe-shattering threat. It should be the BBC Worldwide equivalent of The Avengers, with solo movies leading up to the huge team-up film.

I think it's very safe to say this won't happen, and let us all thank our lucky stars that it won't

IF this ever happens..its YEARS away. Capaldi said recently he has heard no plans for a movie

Indeed. Imagine 13 or more versions of the same character (including several recasts) being given equal screen time. What a convoluted mess that would be.

And, no disrespect to the guys cos they're amazing, but that cast would also include stuff like Colin Baker aged 70+ in his old 80s clown costume again. Poor guy. No, it's fanwank of the highest order, best left to stuff like comic books and the like.

Is this satire? Please tell me it's satire.

In terms of premise, the only idea I've heard that I'd like to see explored is something along the lines of a time travellers assemble scenario. You'll never get all the Doctor's, and frankly a movie should also avoid multi-Doctor nonsense as well.
Instead I'm thinking it should channel Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure - a film that was basically a Doctor Who story replacing the Doctor with some stereotypical American teens - it had a time-travelling phone box for crying out loud! In fact, I'm now convinced that there's a parallel world out there where George Carlin plays The Doctor

But yes, the story would need to both largely stand on its own as a product, but also be accepted into the continuity of the series so it doesn't become estranged. It would need to avoid looking too 'big' at risk of undermining the TV series. The big question comes down to casting the leads... what can a movie do that a movie-event like The Day of the Doctor and Deep Breath cannot? Do you keep the same Doctor as the TV series? Do you keep the same companion?

So many risks involved, I can understand the apprehension towards the project myself.

On a slightly related note, I found this...

http://www.radiotimes.com/uploads/im...inal/51532.jpg

The only Doctors who'd need to be recast are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Doctors. 1 and 2 have already (technically) been recast anyway in An Adventure In Space And Time.

No, they haven't. Bradley and Shearsmith played Hartnell and Troughton, not the first two Doctors.

Plus Baker, McCoy and Baker are in their 70s and 80s now and bear little physical resemblance to their versions of the Doctor.

Maybe have cameos or charity sketches with the old Doctors, but full comebacks would be ridiculous at this stage.

And, of course, let's not forget that Eccleston is unlikely to return to the role. Surprised you overlooked that one, seeing as you take every opportunity to defame the man for moving on from the show.

Besides which, 13 (or more) individual films (with some very elderly lead actors) leading to an Avengers-style team-up? No studio is going to make that sort of commitment.

Even the Marvel and DC films aren't planned more than 6 movies ahead. Half of which can be postponed or pulled if the films start to bomb at the box office.

....playing the 1st and 2nd Doctor. So they have technically.

Who really cares what they look like now? They're still the Doctor and always will be.


If anything's ridiculous, I think it's these kind of comments about the idea of classic series Doctors returning. It's already happened anyway with Tom Baker as the Curator.


Just use the trailer footage of him running from a fireball.


Then they would be a bunch of bores IMO. And stupid, as it would make them a whole load of money. Multi-Doctor IS big and people love shared universes with team-up movies at the moment.


Doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

I can't say I'm completely sold on the idea of a 'Hollywood' Doctor Who movie.
Given the endless churning out of soulless, dumb CGI eye candy superhero gumph over over last few years it doesn't fill me with confidence. I think a Who movie needs to be a lot smarter than the majority of what the comparable movie genre is offering over the pond.

Please don't think me rude but I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious or having a joke.

Don't tell him, Pike!

(deliberate allusion to the "unknown" Phillip Madoc.)

Only in the context of a show within the film. No self-respecting actor would want to ape another person's take on the same role.

It's not just about looks. Doctor Who filming can be gruelling for actors considerably younger than their 70s and 80s.

And he could barely walk.

For a whole movie? A bit like Bela Lugosi's "performance" in Plan 9 from Outer Space? A story built around a few seconds of stock footage.

If mega-rich studios such as Disney and Warner Bros won't commit to more than 6 films in a hugely successful shared universe (with no more than 3 actually in-production at one time), then the fledgling BBC Studios would be insane to commit to 14+ movies without seeing the performance of the first one.

Besides which, there would need to be a gap in-between movies, so it's quite possible some more of the Doctors would be too ill or too dead by the time their "turn" comes around.

This is the sort of stuff Ian Levine might have made privately (with Captain Pugwash-style animation) for his own personal enjoyment. There's no way such self-indulgent fanwank would be a hit with the public.

Even a retread of Day of the Doctor with the relative star power of Smith and Tennant and Capaldi would only be a modest success relatively speaking with a similarly modest budget. The idea that a film starring say Six or Seven or someone recast as One would be an international or even British blockbuster success is absolutely insane. It wouldn't. It just wouldn't.

I'm not sure anyone knows, least of all Dalekbuster, who appears to live in his own weird universe where pesky things like logic and common sense have departed years ago.

Indeed. Besides which, regeneration exists in Doctor Who to get around the problem of recasting the lead character. A series of 14+ films with the lead character drastically recast in each one is actually built around a problem which studios prefer to avoid.

Plus the movie audience would need to constantly refer back to old TV episodes to see how one Doctor regenerated into the next. It would be nonsensical if the lead character looks and acts differently without the context of regeneration to explain what happened. (Exacerbated by the Hartnell to Troughton changeover episodes being missing from the archives.)

I'm sorry if I appear rude but I'm not quite sure what you find rude about any of that comment.

Richard Hurdnall did.


It IS about looks, though. It's always about looks with this argument. I don't think what they look like now matters; there's plenty of explanations already introduced in the series for aged Doctors now anyway.


Not sure what you were watching but in the Day of the Doctor I saw at the cinema, Tom Baker showed no signs of struggling to walk.

If a movie can be made based on LEGO, then a film could also be made based on a 10 second clip of Christopher Eccleston running away from a fire ball. They could either make it a Doctor-lite movie with Billie Piper in the majority of it as Rose or just do without a 9th Doctor solo film and use the archive clip in the team-up film.


Easy solution: film the oldest actors' parts first.

This is the sort of stuff Ian Levine might have made privately (with Captain Pugwash-style animation) for his own personal enjoyment. There's no way such self-indulgent fanwank would be a hit with the public