![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sea_thoughtsOkay. Deep breath. I'm going to try and be as objective as possible. *wrestles fangirl back into her straight jacket*
Let's BREAK IT DOWN!
"We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right," he said. "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."
Uh huh. Okay. This seems fair, as it can be quite frustrating to have films that would have been great as tv episodes but are overstretched to meet the standard feature time. (Although you could just make a SHORT film.) I am a bit leery of the implication that DW doesn't translate well to the big screen in general but okay.
"Doctor Who" follows the adventures across space and time of a super-intelligent alien in human form, who battles a variety of cosmic bad guys aided by plucky human companions.
The Doctor doesn't go looking for a fight (unless you're talking about Ten in his Time Lord Victorious mode). He just won't run away from one. There's a difference.
"The notion of the time-travelling Time Lord is such a strong one, because you can express story and drama in any dimension or time," Yates said.
Yes! I agree! As long as you keep what made the character so beloved in the first place.
"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Does this mean you're going to completely ignore what RTD and Moffat have done? I'm going to state the obvious and say that would be a BAD IDEA. Doctor Who has always been a show that's played fast and loose with its own continuity... but that is not the same as completely abandoning it. Unless Yates means something like Gallifrey Academy: First Class. I think I'm not alone in saying I would certainly be willing to give THAT idea some room (especially if you got Fassbender to play the Master and McAvoy to play the Doctor, haha), but I don't see the point of rebooting the TV series while it's STILL ON AIR and it's still doing the business when it comes to ratings/DVD sales/merchandise etc.
They already tried that with the DW movie back in the 90s. And the only good thing to come out of that movie was Paul McGann (and Sexy in her steampunk phase). There are so many things that could go wrong with this movie that I actually feel a bit sick contemplating the prospect.
"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," he explained.
Honestly, this is the part which really pissed me off. No, Yates, he did NOT capture it 'perfectly'. Making Ron say 'bloody' every other sentence and sticking 'mental' in there a couple of times does NOT mean he captured the British sensibility. You want proof? Harry Potter hugging people in the movies left, right and centre when Harry Potter in the books finds it hard to show any kind of spontaneous physical affection AT ALL! (It's not that he doesn't care about people; he just wasn't hugged after his parents died. AT THE AGE OF ONE. Excuse me while I have a little cry.)
I do like Yates as a director, but I'm worried about who's going to write the script. I think there are some good American writers out there. But they would have to understand and love the show. They would need to understand, in the words of Craig Ferguson, that this show is about the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism. Look at those last four words and then think of Hollywood. Do you think anyone in that town could understand that concept?
Let's BREAK IT DOWN!
"We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right," he said. "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."
Uh huh. Okay. This seems fair, as it can be quite frustrating to have films that would have been great as tv episodes but are overstretched to meet the standard feature time. (Although you could just make a SHORT film.) I am a bit leery of the implication that DW doesn't translate well to the big screen in general but okay.
"Doctor Who" follows the adventures across space and time of a super-intelligent alien in human form, who battles a variety of cosmic bad guys aided by plucky human companions.
The Doctor doesn't go looking for a fight (unless you're talking about Ten in his Time Lord Victorious mode). He just won't run away from one. There's a difference.
"The notion of the time-travelling Time Lord is such a strong one, because you can express story and drama in any dimension or time," Yates said.
Yes! I agree! As long as you keep what made the character so beloved in the first place.
"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Does this mean you're going to completely ignore what RTD and Moffat have done? I'm going to state the obvious and say that would be a BAD IDEA. Doctor Who has always been a show that's played fast and loose with its own continuity... but that is not the same as completely abandoning it. Unless Yates means something like Gallifrey Academy: First Class. I think I'm not alone in saying I would certainly be willing to give THAT idea some room (especially if you got Fassbender to play the Master and McAvoy to play the Doctor, haha), but I don't see the point of rebooting the TV series while it's STILL ON AIR and it's still doing the business when it comes to ratings/DVD sales/merchandise etc.
They already tried that with the DW movie back in the 90s. And the only good thing to come out of that movie was Paul McGann (and Sexy in her steampunk phase). There are so many things that could go wrong with this movie that I actually feel a bit sick contemplating the prospect.
"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," he explained.
Honestly, this is the part which really pissed me off. No, Yates, he did NOT capture it 'perfectly'. Making Ron say 'bloody' every other sentence and sticking 'mental' in there a couple of times does NOT mean he captured the British sensibility. You want proof? Harry Potter hugging people in the movies left, right and centre when Harry Potter in the books finds it hard to show any kind of spontaneous physical affection AT ALL! (It's not that he doesn't care about people; he just wasn't hugged after his parents died. AT THE AGE OF ONE. Excuse me while I have a little cry.)
I do like Yates as a director, but I'm worried about who's going to write the script. I think there are some good American writers out there. But they would have to understand and love the show. They would need to understand, in the words of Craig Ferguson, that this show is about the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism. Look at those last four words and then think of Hollywood. Do you think anyone in that town could understand that concept?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-15 06:36 pm (UTC)I like Yates--and the project is three years in the making. I've read that Matt Smith, although enjoying his success talking about his stint drawing to a close, and Karen (don't know how true this was) wants Amy killed off when she leaves (not that Moffat will do that!). Alex Kingston said that she's keeping her home in the USA and has to communt to the UK to do Who. Three years from now, fans might not like the 12th Doctor, or the new head writer, as I'm certain that Moffat will want to move on to other things as well.
I watched the last HP movie last night and I didn't even mind the bit about making Snape a hero-- in fact I actually cried for Snape! Me--sympathizing with Snape.
From the POV of a Yank who watches a great deal of British movies and television: Bloody, (In a young character who swears) works a lot better in an almost a Family Film like Harry Potter, than "F" and "S" "C' every other line. Just watched "Sexy Beast". Bleep, Bleep, Bleep, Bleep, Bleep!
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Does this mean you're going to completely ignore what RTD and Moffat have done? I'm going to state the obvious and say that would be a BAD IDEA. Remember not every Classic Who fan was overjoyed when Russell Davies admitted to ignoring a great deal of Classic Who canon when he re-imagined the show--some still are complaining because the story arch was romantic/relationship driven instead of adventure driven. And Frankly, and I adore River, I'm not plunking down 10-15 dollars (I'm certain theater cost will rise in three years!) to watch 90 minutes of "are we or aren't -- will we or won't we" and then have the Doctor win the day with some deus ex machina. What's wrong with Yates deciding he is free to make up his own canon or start from Scratch? For all we know,-- and I truly suspect he does mean something like this- Starting from scratch may mean starting from the First Doctor and Susan fleeing Gallifrey and helping us to imagine those first years from the POV of Classic Who writers like Terry Nation and Douglas Adams.
The Doctor is an alien who has chosen to emulate the British way of life and this is a British television show. I don't see any problem with making the Universe--universal instead of caricatures of what the British think other culture or ethnic groups --which is exactly what we get with the televised Who. I'm still stunned, (as well as deeply moved and impressed) by the beautiful portrayal of the young Muslim woman, Rita, in the God Complex. I still cringe at Tallulah and Solomon's first lines. I'd rather when it comes to a production team and casting that we get something international as opposed to something purely American or British--unless they want to make it clear that the Film is taking an Arthur Dent view of the universe. They'll have to be very clever -- think of the Canadian Film with Paul McGann-- when it comes to camp. Sometimes that works on the big screen, sometimes it goes over the audiences head--which is sad, because if anything dumbing down the plot to me, may mean they take out the camp, fun and humor that made the classic Doctor Who a hit with American fans in the first place.
I think Yates can make the Who Universe less xenophobic and still keep it fresh in the audience mind that for all practical purposes the Doctor is in behavior and ethics as British as the Queen.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-15 06:54 pm (UTC)*barf* Not me.
From the POV of a Yank who watches a great deal of British movies and television: Bloody, (In a young character who swears) works a lot better in an almost a Family Film like Harry Potter, than "F" and "S" "C' every other line. Just watched "Sexy Beast". Bleep, Bleep, Bleep, Bleep, Bleep!
Yes, but that's not what I meant. There are other British swearwords (ones used in the books) that could have been used instead. I wasn't advocating more swearing. I simply said that sticking British swear words and British slang in sentences doesn't necessarily make a character British.
caricatures of what the British think other culture or ethnic groups --which is exactly what we get with the televised Who
Ouch. There have been some really crude portrayals, yes, but not all of them. And frankly, I think that's a problem with children's television (and literature!) as a whole, rather than just Who. And making the programme 'more international' won't necessarily solve those problems, but I take your point. I don't think Who is deliberately xenophobic.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-15 07:41 pm (UTC)And frankly, I think that's a problem with children's television (and literature!) as a whole, rather than just Who Hard to tell, as I am not Briton. In the USA, family programming can get preachy, or just dumb, but for the most part. I was watching Charlie Booker and he was talking about American television the good and bad, and some of the things he thought we took seriously, No one takes seriously, unless they haven't gotten through primary school or they're running for public office.
I know our culture are more different than people recognize because of the shared language. Class in the US is based in money, so the view of the Everyman is a great deal different from yours. I know there have been complaints for example of the portrayal of Rani's family becoming caricature than fair. I liked the portrayal of Clyde and his Mum, although it bordered on idyllic. But I like how SJA writers deal with things; except for characters of color usually ending up monsters or dead, or insecure, RTD did a somewhat better job on Torchwood than he did on Who.
no subject
Date: 2011-11-15 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-11-15 08:00 pm (UTC)