Oh no:

http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/doctor-who-to-become-movie-franchise/story/feature/

Mmmmmm, maybe it will be set during the Time War. That wouldn't be so bad. Could be awsome in fact, IF, it's done by someone who understand the whoniverse

Quick,someone remove this before Emily reads it--SHE'LL HAVE A COW!!!!!!!!

Hopefully they'll get RTD or Moffat to write it.

A Doctor Who feature film!? I'm not holding my breath. I've heard this before, in the late 80's. Nothing happened then, and probably nothing will happen now.

Lets just say the last Who film(the mess with McGann) was not one of Who's highpoints.

As for feature films--don't mention them(the Cushing movies) unless you really want Emily to blow her top!!!!

>As for feature films--don't mention them(the Cushing movies) unless you really want Emily to blow her top!!!!


Well, you just mentioned them, so I'm heading for the bunker.

Am I the only one here who doesn't expect Emily to go crazy with all this? I expect her to react to the movie news with the same excited trepidation that most of us have right now. She's well aware of the Cushing films, and I don't recall any berserk rants about them before. They're so obviously non-canon that they're a non-issue.

>Am I the only one here who doesn't expect Emily to go crazy with all this?

Actually, I have read enough of her posts to know that she cannot be predicted. I also read enough of everybody else's posts to know how much you guys like yanking her chain, in a gentle affectionate way of course. So I'll just sit quietly here and wait for her reaction. Shouldn't be too long now.

=8)

Mmmmmm, maybe it will be set during the Time War. That wouldn't be so bad. Could be awsome in fact, IF, it's done by someone who understand the whoniverse

Yes! COULDN'T it just!!

Quick,someone remove this before Emily reads it--SHE'LL HAVE A COW!!!!!!!!

I can categorically assure you that I'm not having a cow. I am, OF COURSE, maintaining a positive and level-headed reaction at all times:

a) It'll never happen

b) OK, it MIGHT happen, but not for YEARS

c) OK, if it DOES happen it might be BLOODY BRILLIANT, and, more importantly, CANONICAL

d) OK, it the worst comes to the absolute worst...it's STILL gonna be better than Timelash. And we survived THAT.

Hopefully they'll get RTD or Moffat to write it.

Oh GOD yes, now that RTG's had His unsuccessful break, SURELY He'll be ready to return to the fold?

A Doctor Who feature film!? I'm not holding my breath. I've heard this before, in the late 80's. Nothing happened then, and probably nothing will happen now.

Well, QUITE.

On the other hand, Jane Tranter is involved. And SHE gets things done. She and Lorraine Heggessey were the Living Gods who got us our Who back, against FAR greater odds than any movie faces.

Lets just say the last Who film(the mess with McGann) was not one of Who's highpoints.

But it does provide a shining template of How Not To Do It.

As for feature films--don't mention them(the Cushing movies) unless you really want Emily to blow her top!!!!

Now, now, the Cushing movies were a MILLENNIUM ago. Literally. The human race has EVOLVED since then. There will be no Earth scientists called Dr Who in the new movie.

Or if they are...we'll just have to kill them.

See? Level-headed and positive.

Am I the only one here who doesn't expect Emily to go crazy with all this?

THANK you, Kevin.

I expect her to react to the movie news with the same excited trepidation that most of us have right now.

I have to admit...there WAS a twinge of excitement.

Tennant would come back for a movie, wouldn't he? WOULDN'T HE???

I also read enough of everybody else's posts to know how much you guys like yanking her chain, in a gentle affectionate way of course.

GENTLE AFFECTIONATE WAY????

Have you SEEN what Rodney's threatened to do to Ickle Diddumses??

Oh, there's an amusing article in the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100117687/hollywood-keep-your-hands-off-doctor-who/

'I fear that high production values and the inevitable sexualisation of the lead characters that a Hollywood treatment brings will destroy the show.' - I'm sorry, has this guy not actually WATCHED Doctor Who in the last six-and-a-half years? Which bit of HIGH PRODUCTION VALUES and A SEX-MANIAC IN THE TARDIS did he somehow fail to spot...?

And there's a better article in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/nov/15/doctor-who-film-david-yates

It would DEFINITELY be a reboot?

Reboots are just...not cool.

I get the impression that any Doctor Who movie will be out of continuity and thus not much of an issue either way.

It might be an interesting hour and a half to two hours, but without continuity, it won't be Doctor Who.

Now if they did opt to *replace* the TV series, that would be a problem, but the seriously sketchy stuff they're releasing now doesn't sound like a plan to scratch the series & make a movie. It sounds like "Oh, let's just make a separate movie!"

I do have to add, though: "If the film is slick and shiny and filmed on location, it will lose something essential to its success." He really hasn't seen Doctor Who lately, has he? Though, come to think of it, "slick" isn't exactly the word that comes to mind with Planet of the Dead.

More info on the possible movie

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-11-15/a-timeline-of-doctor-who-movie-rumours

My opinion of that venture has been revised downward, but I'm not writing it off yet. It will either be awsome or awful. I'm hoping for the former.

Revisting the Time War would be awesome. Plenty of room for revisionist history as anything contradictory can be explained away. Need to have McGann open it like McCoy did, then kill him off so Eccleston can be the lead.

As I said, I'll believe it when I see it. I remember the movie talk of the late 80's. Caroline Munro was going to be in it (she was going to play a Gallifreyan TARDIS engineer called Cora, if memory serves me). They talked, and talked, and talked, and then it just fizzled out. Of course, given that Who's popularity was in free fall by then might have had something to do with it. They probably felt they wouldn't get a good return on the investment and got scared away.

Gave this its own section. If it actually looks as if it might HAPPEN it can have the honour of being moved into Apocrypa: Movies. (And if it looks like PLEASE GODS it'll be a CANONICAL movie...well, I'll cross that bridge when we get to it.)

I get the impression that any Doctor Who movie will be out of continuity and thus not much of an issue either way.

The very fact there's a huge non-canonical rock thrown into the Who pool will be a FAR bigger issue than all those books, audios, comics etc that don't count...

Now if they did opt to *replace* the TV series, that would be a problem

'Problem' is the understatement of human history.

Revisting the Time War would be awesome.

Though I'm not sure I could cope with THAT amount of saliva on the big screen...

Need to have McGann open it like McCoy did, then kill him off so Eccleston can be the lead.

God, IF ONLY...

Am I the only person here who finds it upsetting to be reading in an area they've never seen before--and find that somehow their posts are already there???

(It feels like I've stumbled into "The Twilight Zone"!!!!!!)

Bwahaha! You are caught in a space/time trap! You will never leave, thanks to recursive occlusion and/or a chronic hysteresis!

I'll just pull the wobley lever and reset this section.

Sorry Francois--you have to follow the rules.

If I remember correctly to escape this trap I have to wiggle K-9s tail.

AH-much better!!!

You're going to have to do better than that to get rid of ME Emily!!!!! BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

>>Need to have McGann open it like McCoy did, then kill him off so Eccleston can be the lead.

>God, IF ONLY...

I see McGann playing an older, scarred, darker Doctor, hardened by decades, or even centuries of the Time War. I see Eccleston arriving much later. Exactly when would depend on whether Doctor number eight or Doctor number nine destroyed the Daleks and the Time Lords, something that is never clearly said in the TV show. My gut feeling is that it was eight and that the Doctor only survived the horror and the guilt of that action by escaping into the personnality change of a regeneration, and I'm pretty sure he did not do that on purpose.

The movie could also answer a number of questions. How and why was the Master liberated from the Eye of Harmony? How did he end up as gentle Professor Yana so far in the universe's future? Who was that mysterious woman seen at the side of Rassilon in The End of Time, whom the Doctor seemed to know very well? How did the Doctor manage to single handedly destroy the two most powerful species in the universe?

I think I'll stop here, it makes no sense torturing myself waiting for something that will never happen,

Sigh!

>Sorry Francois--you have to follow the rules.

0.o

Rules?

There are rules?

Francois:There are rules?

Sort of.

Emily tried to toss me into a trap from the show--I tossed the Doctors way out back at her.

(IIRC:In "Meglos", when the Doctor was tossed into a time loop(a chronic hysteresis) the Doctor stated there was no way out, thought about it for a minute, tried wiggleing(waggleing??) K-9s tail, K-9 says "Repairs complete", and Romana says "We're out".)

Does it make sense--good question; but it is canon,which is good enough for me.

I think I'll stop here, it makes no sense torturing myself waiting for something that will never happen,

It won't happen on-screen, tragically, but RTG confessed in The Writer's Tale to being tempted to write a book about the Time War...

Emily tried to toss me into a trap from the show--I tossed the Doctors way out back at her.

Curses, foiled again.

>but RTG confessed in The Writer's Tale to being tempted to write a book about the Time War...

Well, I sincerely hope he gives in to temptation.

I'd buy it.

BUY it? I'd sell my SOUL for it...

Emily:BUY it? I'd sell my SOUL for it...

But Emily--you're an atheist.

Doesn't this mean that you don't have a soul????

(Maybe you should offer something worth a little more if you really it.)

Just saying.....

Doesn't this mean that you don't have a soul????

Hmmm....so many lines here but I believe, for once, I'll keep my mouth shut...

Maybe you should offer something worth a little more if you really it.

She'd buy a dog for it maybe?

Rodney:Hmmm....so many lines here but I believe, for once, I'll keep my mouth shut...

Hey-I'm just going with what she herself has said.

IIRC Emily has stated more than once that she does not belieive she has a soul.

Rodney:She'd buy a dog for it maybe?

You need to follow the thread Rodney.

Emily:It won't happen on-screen, tragically, but RTG confessed in The Writer's Tale to being tempted to write a book about the Time War...

Amanda:I'd buy it.

Emily:BUY it? I'd sell my SOUL for it...

So Emily is telling us that for something she really wants she'll give us something she either doesn't have, or feels has no value.

It would be like you Rodney offering to trade your cat for something--since you have no cat, and wouldn't care if you did--it's not much of an offer.

For an offer like that to mean anything it must be both something you have and something you value--otherwise it's just empty words.

Now if Emily offered one of her cats I'd take her as meaning something--but I doubt she'd pay that high a price.

Yes, yes, you're all quite right, and I shouldn't have used a catch-all it-means-everything-to-me phrase that is simply not applicable. It's like saying I'd swap my first-born child for it - absolutely true but kinda irrelevant.

And no, I wouldn't be prepared to lose a cat OR put up with a disgusting panting smelly DAWG for the privilege of this book. Mainly because RTG has ALREADY given me so much joy that I could live off His DVDs for the rest of my life and be blessed.

Not that I don't want a Time War book AND a Season 7/33 AND I WANT THEM NOW.

Aha! Moffat on Twitter:

Movie thing: David Yates, great director, was speaking off the cuff, on a red carpet. You've seen the rubbish I talk when I'm cornered.

To clarify: any Doctor Who movie would be made by the BBC team, star the current TV Doctor and certainly NOT be a Hollywood reboot.

FANTASTIC NEWS!

(Though...y'know...there's nothing wrong with using past Doctors either. To give the current one more time to concentrate on filming PROPER Who. And to give me the chance to see David Tennant's hair on the big screen.)

Being me, I'm just a leetle suspicious about why this Happy Announcement took quite so long. I just get the no doubt utterly unfounded feeling that it took The Moff a couple of weeks to yell the BBC into submission.

A refreshingly great tweet from the Moff...


"To clarify: any Doctor Who movie would be made by the BBC team, star the current TV Doctor and certainly NOT be a Hollywood reboot.

So it is written- so mote it be!

Well, that's a relief.

So Emily IS on Twitter!

Of course I am! Lawrence is on Twitter, ergo, I follow him. Plus The Moff. I don't...y'know...SAY pointless things in less than however-many-characters-it-is.

what's your twitter name?

Or, maybe Yates is making it after all: http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/8809/war-erupts-over-doctor-who-film.html

This Yates character is about to learn how difficult Who fans are to please, and there are many more of us now.

I don't understand how Yates can insist he will be making his movie since neither the BBC nor Moffat have any intention of releasing the rights to the franchise to him, or anyone else.

Exactly. And if Yates won't do the film under their terms I'm sure there are plenty of directors who will happily do it (many of whom have directed episodes of Who already)

I refer you to what happened to Star trek: TNG. "Generations"- film taken out of writers and directors hands- decidedly average. "First Contact"- written by writers of the show and directed by a star and former director of the show- brilliant.

There's a connection there that should not be overlooked. If there's one thing I'd HOPE the BBC has learnt from the telemovie and the Cushing films, is that getting anyone else to mess with Who will result in an awful mess!

Have you heard that they're making a Who movie. My mate thinks this means they'll kill off the series, discuss.

Ah yes, we have an entire thread devoted to this rumour, into which I've moved your comment...

...I was gonna reassure you with Moffat's recent tweet that it will TOTALLY run alongside True (i.e. TV) Who, canonincal and starring the current Doctor and all...but it seems to have disappeared from Twitter. A rather worrying sign...

...but it seems to have disappeared from Twitter. A rather worrying sign...

Or maybe Moffat thinks the notion of an independant Who movie is so lame that it no longer deserves his attention?

He CERTAINLY doesn't think THAT. He is a True Fan. Every extra moment of Who-y goodness is precious to him.

He CERTAINLY doesn't think THAT. He is a True Fan. Every extra moment of Who-y goodness is precious to him.

Allow me to rephrase that. Maybe he thinks YATES Who movie project is so lame that it no longer deserves his attention.

After the train wreck of a Christmas special I think my theory gains weight. Remember it's not entirely up to the Moff. The beeb might do it.

Dude, we get it, you hated the Christmas special. You don't need to remind us in every smegging post you make today!

Hey, he's ENTITLED to do so! Frankly I intend to be reminding you of MY disappointment every day until I GET A NEW BLOODY EPISODE, i.e. until next bloody Autumn!

gonna be a loooong year then.....

•••• right it's gonna be a looooooooooooooong year WHATEVER I say. No Torchwood, no Sarah Jane Adventures, no Who till AUTUMN...well, let's count our blessings, at least there'll be no K9...

I think I've only mentioned it twice Tim. So are we having another year of specials them?

No no, we've been PROMISED another PROPER season but it almost certainly won't start till Autumn 2012 (cue Moffat waffling about how much more wonderful it is watching Who during the long dark Winter evenings when only a few months ago the raging hypocrite was justifying slicing up Season 6 by promising us we'd NEVER be more than a few months away from brand new Who) which means it'll run into 2013 and no doubt give them an excuse for not giving us a proper 14 episodes for Season 8/34 EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY YEAR - speaking of which, Moffat's been making remarks about not only having ONE Special to celebrate the anniversary, which in normal circumstances would have me cracking open the champagne but in THESE circumstances makes me suspect we'll be fobbed off with the tail-end of Season 7/33 plus a few Specials.

Maybe it's so we'll have a decent amount of time to forget just how bad the Xmas special was and actually bother to tune lol .

Have you never heard of the need to get straight back on a horse after you fall off? What we NEED is an EMERGENCY NEW EPISODE, as soon as possible!

DWM in April 1997 says that 'a consortium of would-be film-makers are preparing to sue BBC Worldwide after a deal allowing them to make Doctor Who movies for theatrical release was allegedly reneged upon...' - for £15 million (£1m for the production costs and £14m for the profits their three films would have made). They acquired the rights in 1987 and 'Early in 1994, a few weeks before those rights were due to expire, [they were] "devastated" to learn that negotiations were underway to relaunch Doctor Who on the small screen...The group claim to have been on the verge of signing Alan Rickman in the leasd role...'

Is this an April Fool or something? And if not, why the hell are the BBC even THINKING about going down THAT route again?

Alan Rickman would have made a much better Master, me thinks. Anyway, it's all in the past, danger averted.

I'm not so sure...if it took these people seven years to totally fail to do anything about making a Who movie, the legal process could be taking a LOT longer...

And anyway, I'm not convinced the BBC have any better lawyers THESE days than they did in the 80s. They totally forgot to write MAKING ECCY STAY MORE THAN A YEAR into their contracts for starters, so who knows how badly they'll've screwed things up while coming to terms with this David Yates person.

From Gallifrey Base:

Matt Smith has ruled himself out of appearing in a big-screen version of the show; speaking to Collider at last week's Comic-Con the actor explained:

For my money, whoever is playing the Doctor should be in the movie. I don't think there should be two Doctors. I think it would take four or five years to get something like that off the ground, and I don't anticipate that I'll be playing the Doctor then. My skin and the aging process couldn't take it. But, I don't see any reason why it couldn't work. I think they should get Steven to write it because he’s the best.

Meanwhile, Steven Moffat re-iterated that any film version of Doctor Who will not be a separate entity to the current television series. Speaking to Airlock Alpha at the same event, the show's lead writer commented:

There will not come a time when there's a separate kind of Doctor Who. What was talked about there was that there would be a separate Doctor and a different continuity. Of course it won't. That would be silly. Everyone knows that's silly. The BBC knows that's silly, and is not going to do that.

The likelihood of an alternative film version of the show was promoted by director David Yates back in November when he told Variety that BBC Worldwide Productions were undertaking the project and writers were being considered for a version that "would start from scratch".

*Contemptuous sniff* Imagine TOM BAKER giving up being the Doctor because he thought his SKIN couldn't take it...

Hmmmm, shouldn't that be MATT SMITH giving up being the Doctor because he thought his skin couldn't take it?

No, I meant, I couldn't imagine our wonderful Fourth Doctor being in this truly pathetic position. Sorry, I wasn't being clear, should have said 'Just TRY to imagine TOM BAKER etc....'

I know. I realized it about a nanosecond AFTER I clicked Post Message. And thanks for apoligizing for MY mistake. You would make a good canadian.

'Who can work as audio plays, as television, as DVDs, or as comics quite well. But film, in the end, is just not a medium it's well-suited to. Because what makes Doctor Who brilliant is there's no such thing as the iconic Doctor Who story that captures the feel of the show. The feel of the show is the vertigo when you're pulled from one story to another' - TARDIS Eruditorum. Skipping over the lack of mention of the novels, the bizarre delusion that comic Who works, and the ignoring of City of Death's proof that you CAN have the iconic feeling-capturing Doctor Who story...that's actually a good point. I suppose it could be got round by having LOTS AND LOTS of movies...?

Not a good idea at all- I think Trek has learnt that lesson the hard way.

Well, OF COURSE Trek films would be awful...

Some of them were quite good actually. Some of them were quite bad. And the last two before the reboot of 2009 were truly awful.

Don't waste your breath, Francois, trying to convince Emily. In her mind, Star Trek's crime is simple, it's not Doctor Who.

Then, she should at least consider having a look at the recently published Who-Trek graphic novel.

If she doesn't like Star Trek nor graphic novels nor wasting her time on non-canonical stories, why should she?

Because it's got the words 'Doctor Who' in the title...because I'm OBVIOUSLY a sado-masochist or I wouldn't have emerged from The Sixteen Long And Barren Years Of Despair still a Fan...though, mind you, I intend to put off my examination of said ABOMINATION for as long as physically possible...

Moderator's Note: Moved from 'Doctor Who and Disney' thread:

There doesn't seem to be a general discussion section for the Doctor Who series as a whole, so I'm putting this here. The Walt Disney Company has recently acquired Lucasfilm for just over 4 billion dollars.

What the heck does THAT have to do with Doctor Who you may ask? Well, Walt Disney has also acquired Marvel Comics, Pixar, The Jim Henson company, and others. It's a strategy of theirs, assimilate proven, popular and lucrative franchises instead of developping their own. So, WHAT other franchise do we know that fits this description, hmmm? That's right, Doctor Who.

Now, I'm not saying there's any talk or rumor that Disney has set its sights on Doctor Who. Nor am I saying it would necessarily be a BAD thing if they did. It could in fact be a great thing, judging by how they usually handle such acquisitions. But for one reason or another, that's the first thought that popped into my mind when I heard about the Lucasfilm acquisition. So I'm submitting it for discussion.

It's a strategy of theirs, assimilate proven, popular and lucrative franchises

We are Disney! You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Seriously, I think a lot of Who fans regard U.S. involvement in anything Who related not so good. The 1996 TV movie was not as well received as the producers had hoped, and you all know how I feel about Miracle Day (which did nothing except sink Torchwood for good).

Bearing that in mind, IMHO, if Disney came sniffing around, the BBC should say "Yankee go home!"

We don't need a Doctor Who movie right now. The TV series is just fine as is.

WHAT TV series? We've had HALF a series in the last couple of years and we'll probably have to wait till AUTUMN for Season 8/34, and I WANT MORE WHO. A new movie, providing it's true to Who and starring a PROPER Doctor, would suit me JUST FINE. In fact, a new one EVERY DAY UNTIL AUTUMN would suit me EVEN BETTER.

The world can never have too much Who.

The Hollywood Executive: What about Michael Caine as an elderly Doctor that quickly regenerates into Ryan Seacrest?

According to the 'Now on the Big Screen' reference book (well, DWM review thereof), 'From 1985, Coast to Coast - later Green Light Productions - hulked its project, Doctor Who - Last of the Time Lords, around for nearly a decade, spending a million pounds on pre-production'...!!!! And to think, the cretins who make the first Cushing movie paid the BBC £500!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the privilege...

And they ended up making the McGann TV movie instead.

Doctor Who Meets Scratchman: the mercifully unmade Tom Baker/Ian Marter abomination:

There are rows of Cybors so why only send two after that vile alien monster, the Doctor?

Um, why DID the Black Shadow do this Great Experiment to animate scarecrows, anyway?

The god Pan has popped up and directed the Doctor's adventures since when?

The hypership explodes why?

Why are there Daleks in a pinball machine?

Why does Scratchman get so excited at a pinball game that he explodes into a million pieces?

What happened to the moths subplot?

'The Doctor, Sarah and Harry start to cheer and sing, dancing a ring-of-roses around the apparatus. They hold hands and circle round and round, ducking under the whirling belt and singing "Yes, We Have No Bananas".' No, I'm not making this up. WHY did DWM have to dig up the script and tarnish our memories of Tom Baker in this way?

'Wondering whether the period requested to make the film - four-and-a-half-years - was perhaps too long an option to allow' - YA THINK?!

Still, maybe there IS a purpose to everything under heaven after all...''It seems that the desire to make Doctor Who Meets Scratchman was one of the things keeping Tom Baker in the role of the Doctor on television...'

Smegging Hell, Emily, are you so desperate for anything Who that you're reduced to nitpicking a nearly forty-year-old script of a movie that was never even made!?

The Capaldi season better start soon. Emily needs new Who and she needs it NOW!

Smegging Hell, Emily, are you so desperate for anything Who that you're reduced to nitpicking a nearly forty-year-old script of a movie that was never even made!?

Well, YEAH.

The Capaldi season better start soon. Emily needs new Who and she needs it NOW!

Yes! NOW! GIVE ME MY CAPALDI!

Smegging Hell, Emily, are you so desperate for anything Who that you're reduced to nitpicking a nearly forty-year-old script of a movie that was never even made!?

I kinda like it when she does that. I think it's good to learn about all aspects of a subject, its successes and failures alike.

Who isn't a SUBJECT, it's the raison d'etre of the human race!

And it doesn't have FAILURES, it just has...um...

...OK, it's just possible that the raison d'etre of the human race may have had...things...that certain mean-minded individuals such as myself may, in a moment of weakness, regard as...

catastrophic failures.

OBVIOUSLY we are SORELY MISTAKEN and must don hair shirts and flagellate ourselves until we see them for the Wondrous Miracles they, in fact, are...

Smegging Hell, Emily, are you so desperate for anything Who that you're reduced to nitpicking a nearly forty-year-old script of a movie that was never even made!?

Dude, she once nitpicked a Doctor Who picture on the back of cereal packet... this really is mild compared to that...

TOMDOC is sobbing

"Oh, Sarah, have you heard? We have no bananas!"

Dude, she once nitpicked a Doctor Who picture on the back of cereal packet

No comment.

Blimey, did I really?

I feel so proud.

DWM, 1989: 'Doctor Who the movie: green light at last!...expect to go into production in November...casting in progress...co-producer Peter Litten said the rights had been bought at great expense. "Nobody would have spent the money we have for a film that isn't going to happen."...principle shooting will run for thirteen weeks, starting in March 1990 with four units filming much of the location work in Yugoslavia...' - OK, what happened to THAT one? And on this particular subject, more recent Doctor Who film news seems awfully non-existent...

Although it does bring to mind the image of DW trying to film in the middle of the Yugoslav Wars.... Doctor Who actor Sylvester McCoy was killed today when a Serbian shell landed on the location shoot area of the widely anticipated new film adaption. Rescue workers recovered the star's prop umbrella and a claim form for expenses...

Ah. Yes. I really should have added two and two together vis-à-vis the location and date. That might explain a LOT.

Though of course it wouldn't be poor dear Sylvester who got reduced to an umbrella. The article also went on at length about what 'star' would have the honour of usurping his place as the Doctor.

The Yugoslav Wars didn't start until 1991 so this would have had no bearing whatsoever on the Doctor Who film, which seems to have stalled because of a) the difficulties of raising finance and interesting studios, and b) the BBC dragging its feet. Even by 1989 Litten and Dugdale's regular announcements of their imminent shooting schedules had begun to take on an air of wish-fulfilment.

Doctor Who actor Sylvester McCoy was killed today when a Serbian shell landed on the location shoot area of the widely anticipated new film adaption

Because of course they were going to cast McCoy in the lead of a big blockbuster movie that they wanted people queueing round the block to see...

The Yugoslav Wars didn't start until 1991 so this would have had no bearing whatsoever on the Doctor Who film

But everyone knew Yugoslavia was about to implode.

OK, so everyone knew THAT from the moment Tito died but it was pretty obviously imminent in '90.

the BBC dragging its feet

They'd SOLD Who like an animal! Like a SLAVE! What right had they to go foot-dragging?

Zagreb looked fine when they hosted the Eurovision there in 1990. Plus the announcement you refer to was in 1989.

Oh, EUROVISION. It has no respect for the laws of God nor Man. It would be QUITE HAPPY belting out its merry songs while the Serbs are preparing their concentration camps in the heart of Europe.

(Yes, in case you're thinking 'She's just bitter cos 42 was postponed for a week to make way for Eurovision'...•••• RIGHT I AM. It's not the sort of crime against humanity one just GETS OVER, regardless of 42 turning out to be a bit rubbish.)

I think it's more a case that no one was speculating about how the Eurovision Song Contest could possibly be held in a potential war zone a good year after Peter Litten was assuring us that the Doctor Who movie was going to be filmed there... because it wasn't a war zone at the time or for over a year afterwards...

I bow to the superior knowledge of anyone who can remember whether or not there was a debate about the location of the Eurovision Song Contest a quarter of a century ago.

Doctor Who Films obviously don't need wars to stymie them. They're just CURSED.

Apparently there's an eight-year plan for Who, Including A Movie

They've been talking about a Doctor Who feature film for nearly thirty years now, and we have yet to see it.

I wonder if such a film will actually appear in my lifetime?

The Daltenrays/Coast to Coast movie farrago went on so long that Caroline Munro started off in the companion role, then was recast as a villain to get a younger actress in. If they'd held the rights any longer she'd have probably been down as playing the Doctor's grandmother.

Leonard Nimoy was attached to direct by the Daltenrays at one point - and even had a meeting with Barry Letts and Terence Dicks about the programme (which just sounds bizarre to me - Star Trek and Dr Who being as incompatible as DC and Marvel in my mind)

Interestingly DC & Marvel have had a few crossovers over the years, & both have published Star Trek comic books.

There was a Star Trek - Men Crossover, complete with a mix up with Bones & Beast.

Daltenrays approached big U.S. film company Paramount at one stage. Paramount wanted to cast Michael Jackson or Bill Cosby as the Doctor...

PLEASE tell me you're making this up.

I thought after the TARDIS's rapping hologrammatic lips rumours nothing could shock me, but...

"Hey, hey, hey, would you like some Jell-O pudding?"

"Sarah Jane is not my lover! She's just a girl who says that I am the one!"

"Sarah Jane is not my lover! She's just a girl who says that I am the one!"

Sarah and Four having sex... or worse, Sarah and Three!

Michael Jackson or Bill Cosby as the Doctor

Thank the dead gods of Krypton that didn't happen, considering what these two men were up to behind the scenes.

Thank the dead gods of Krypton that didn't happen, considering what these two men were up to behind the scenes.

A creep (Jackson) or a rapist (Cosby). Doctor Who would have been tainted forever. (see also: the same thing happening if Patrick Troughton's idea of the Second Doctor as a cod-Arab in blackface had gotten anywhere).

I thought after the TARDIS's rapping hologrammatic lips rumours nothing could shock me

That wasn't anything to do with the Daltenreys film. That was from the draft of the TV Movie where the TARDIS is possessed by the ghost of the Doctor's dead grandfather, Cardinal Borusa.

Michael Jackson or Bill Cosby as the Doctor

This sounds about as plausible as the Donald Sutherland/Sylvester Stallone rumours of the late 1980s. It's well reported that Leonard Nimoy wanted Pierce Brosnan as the Doctor, and when the legal action hit the fan in early 1997 the producers' case alleged that Alan Rickman was lined up for the role.

There are probably parallel universes out there where all of these scenarios have come to pass.

Sarah and Four having sex... or worse, Sarah and Three!

Well, at least, no one suggested Sarah and Thirteen.

Well, at least, no one suggested Sarah and Thirteen.

Lumley or Whittaker?

Do you think the time is right for a Doctor Who movie - not a TV movie, but a big screen version? Maybe a trilogy even?

If so, who would you have to play the Doctor and any companions?

Do you go for a big name actor for the doctor? a big name actor for the companion? or a big name actor for the enemy?

Big name actor for the Doctor - Daniel Day-Lewis, Jude Law or Colin Firth

Well I'm desperate enough during My Wasted Twenty Nineteen Thanks Chibbers to fall upon any stupid movie concept with cries of joy but let's get one thing straight: JODIE! WHITTAKER IS THE DOCTOR.

To paraphrase Kate, Hollywood will not cast JODIE WHITTAKER in a big-screen DW film that they want people queuing up outside to see. Just as the 1960s films went for a bankable name for America.

And can we forget that William Hartnell WAS THE DOCTOR on TV, and who replaced him on the big screen? Some guy called Peter Cushing.

Personally, I think they dropped the ball years ago, and this isn't the time for a Doctor Who movie. The fans are divided, the ratings slipped as the season went on, and the BBC is skipping 2019 completely.
If there was ever a time for a Doctor Who movie it was 2009 with David Tennant, instead of the 4 Gap Year specials

William Shatner. ;-)

People often propose William Shatner in the role of the Doctor as a joke, but I think he'd actually make a pretty good Doctor. He certainly can ham it up with the best of them.

I've been hearing about this Doctor Who movie thing for over thirty years now.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

Scratchman was right church, but wrong pew. The best time to make a Doctor Who film *would* have been during one of the series' 1970s peaks of popularity. Film it in the tv off-season and the loads of kids dragging their parents along to the local cinema to see it would ensure it would make a good profit on a no-doubt modest budget.

And can we forget that William Hartnell WAS THE DOCTOR on TV, and who replaced him on the big screen? Some guy called Peter Cushing.

Hartnell was making one episode a week pretty much every week of the year except Christmas. He wouldn't have had time to make the film, even if he had been a bigger box office draw.

Peter Cushing sympathised with Hartnell though, as he'd been overlooked for the film version of 1984 a decade earlier in favour of someone that no one now remembers.

David Hasselhoff would have been an interesting curio piece. Ditto Donald Sutherland.

At the time, David Hasselhoff was working on Baywatch. So it's unlikely that he would have played the Doctor in the proposed film, even if he had been asked.

Actors frequently make movies while working on tv shows, especially well-known ones like I guess he is.

It's well reported that Leonard Nimoy wanted Pierce Brosnan as the Doctor

As one You Tube comment put it, "have you seen him and Mara Wilson in "Mrs. Doubtfire"? Michael Jackson Mk II"

Bullet dodged...

Of course, most people tend to judge an actor by more than just one film.