Steven Moffat on the Doctor Who film
Speaking to Entertainment Weekly, Steven Moffat has dismissed rumours that a rebooted Doctor Who film is on its way as a “weird fantasy”…
This won’t come as a great surprise to those who followed Steven Moffat’s reaction to David Yates’ announcement he was in talks to direct a Doctor Who feature film, but the Who showrunner has once again denied any such plans exist.
In an interview with US magazine Entertainment Weekly (in Doctor Who’s inaugural EW cover edition no less), Moffat put it in no uncertain terms, “There isn’t a film. That was all some weird fantasy going on somewhere.
“That whole proposal was not true, did not happen. I can say that with authority because, as far as the BBC is concerned, I’m the voice of Doctor Who. So if I say it, it’s true. The BBC own Doctor Who and, for the moment, I run it for them. So I can assure you definitively that was all nonsense – not the idea of making a film, we’d love to make a film, but the idea of a rebooted continuity, a different Doctor. That’s writing the book on how to destroy a franchise. You don’t behave like that with it. Not ever.”
Asked whether Harry Potter director David Yates was involved at any stage, Moffat replied, “I don’t think he was ever signed to it. I never signed him, so he’s not. But I think he’s [expressed] an interest in doing it and he’s a very fine director and I think he’d certainly be someone that would be on the list for directing such a project. I’m a big fan of his. But the project as he describes it would not happen. It was all a bit more off the cuff than it seemed to be.”
Moffat’s last word on the mooted feature film was an assurance that, “…we hope to do a Doctor Who film someday. It will be absolutely run by the Doctor Who production office in Cardiff. It will feature the same Doctor as on television. It will not be a rebooted continuity. All of that would be insane.”
We'd say he's made his position on that fairly clear, then.
Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here
Disqus - noscript
That's all I needed to hear. At least until he's vacated the position, of course. No telling what the next showrunner will do...
thanks for clearing that up Steven. I shudder to think what the Americans might do If they ever got their hands on Doctor Who again, Even though I have a soft spot for McGann's film
"It will feature the same Doctor as on television. It will not be a rebooted continuity. All of that would be insane."
Except that it has already been done twice. See Peter Cushing as Dr. Who. Or, perhaps, don't.
The difference is when those films were made the show had no history, so it didn't matter as much. Now though it would matter and it would essentially ruin all the established canon.
Thats the point, I don't mean be condescending... but you know.. duhhh
I was actually pretty interested in seeing an alternate take on the Doctor. It wouldn't have replaced the show so I didn't understand the naysayers, and I'd love to see what they could do to Doctor Who with a Hollywood budget. And it would also have no River Song, which is a plus.
Ah well.
Could they not use a old Doctor i.e. Paul McGann and bridge the story gap between the '96 movie and the new series, I think that would be somewhat interesting
Well, he would say that.
I love Steven Moffat! God bless the man!!
So is there going to be a movie or not? (ducks behind the sofa...)
It would be difficult for the BBC to make a Doctor Who film anyway because of the restrictions imposed by the license fee. there is a rule that you can't be made to pay extra to follow the storyline of any BBC series. You could make a film that was a standalone adventure with the current cast (like the spin off books), but a regeneration which then became part of 'canon' may be too much and they'd definitely want one in a film.
So, reading between the lines, there WILL be a Doctor Who movie outside of continuity. I thought as much
No, that's a terrible idea.
unless this is a gag, i find it hard to see how you have concluded this
I love it when Moff reminds the world that he's smart. :)
I don't know. Part of me thinks that a movie, unconnected to the TV series might work. At least it would be different. It could work if it was about the 1st Doctor as a 'young' man, maybe him stealing the TARDIS etc. . . That wouldn't mess with continuity too much. I say give it a go.
It couldn't contradict established canon, if it was totally separate from the TV show. If the two aren't connected by anything other than the concepts, there's no canon to contradict.
That's kind of what CBBC requested when the asked for a spin-off from RTD, which of course became The Sarah Jane Adventures. But RTD hated the idea of showing a young Doctor on Gallifrey, because it would ruin the mystery of the character, so the same thing would happen in a movie.
I never made any mention of contradiction, so I don't know where you got that from.
The point I was making is the same point Moffat was making which is if it was rebooted now it would be ruining the show. Whereas it was alright then because there was nothing that could be ruined, as the show had only been on the air for a couple of years.
It could be separate from the TV show, but again what would be the point? Fans and viewers alike wouldn't want to see a new version of Doctor Who when there's so much canon already in place. Regardless doing a separate version would in essence being rebooting the show, because you'd be re-establishing the character and set-up, which is not something that needs to be done.
Moffat lies ...
What about a nine hour trilogy based off the Time War?
I think it was based on the fact that the first rule is this "Moffat always lies".
no River Song? are you mad? the only character that needs a boot from the story line is Amy's stupid ass, which is happening anyway. nothing against the actress, she does great at her role and is great eye candy (then again, im biased to redheads). but the character has got to be the dumbest person he could have picked up. 'lets do A cause he told me not to and i could die, then get mad if he doesnt save me in time'. im pretty sure the only reasons he picked her up was a) little girl alone in a BIG house (sympathy/pity) and b) ginger. (since '05 resume, in order, hes had blonde, black, brunette, it was time for a redhead)
Sorry mate, I'm quite fond of the Ponds. Once the writers got her crush on the Doctor out of their system her and Rory have been one of the biggest successes of Moffat Who. I loved The Girl Who Waited and Rory continues to be a tragically underused scene stealer.
I'm not sure I want to go into why I dislike River Song so much as you can read pretty much every reason described more articulately by others on pretty much every Who forum out there, but it's mainly because she's essentially a pretty thin character who boils down to little more than Moffat's Wank Fantasy. It's not her obnoxiousness and Mary Sueish one-ups-the-Doctor-at-everything nature that annoy me most; what bothers me more is that she's described as some empowering strong female character when her entire existence, from birth to childhood to death, is completely and utterly centred around her obsession with the Doctor. She was even more irritating when she turned up in Sherlock with a different name but a similar obsession.
Well it's not strictly true really is it? Just because no-one's approached the BBC, doesn't mean they're not developing something to pitch at them in a year or two's time.
if any1 really put thought into it they cud do a trilogy dedicated to explaining the time war and all he had to go thru .not sure if the old series has done that since i only watch the newest seasons.but i definately think the time war wud be the best story for the big screen since it wud have action, a complex story as always and im thinking the war which is described as the last time war gives the impression of more before it. a new doctor wud be needed and as bonus to moffat there wud be no interference to his current story and direction of the show