NEWSFlLASH:NOT A RUMOR:NEW DOCTOR WHO FILM IN TALKS
DavrosDW
I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you to
know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
Convention) has just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
BBC for another Doctor Who film. I knew Phil wouldn't let us down.
If you want proof of my news, go to the Outpost Gallifrey Website at
http://www.concentric.net/~jslyon
John Long
Cinematic I wonder? But it will take more than talks.
--
JOHN LONG jl...@epix.net
*****************************
Current Assignment - UNIT 841
Jestingone
Davr...@aol.com wrote:
>I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you
>to
>know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
>Convention) has just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
>BBC for another Doctor Who film. I knew Phil wouldn't let us down.
>If you want proof of my news, go to the Outpost Gallifrey Website at
>http://www.concentric.net/~jslyon
WAHOO!!!!
Thanks for the pointer, Davros... I probably wouldn't have checked the Outpost
for another day or so yet.
Of course, it's just "talks" at this point... but this is the best news in a
great long while! YIPPEE!
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 6 Feb 1998 02:13:58 GMT, I overheard Jestingone say:
> Davr...@aol.com wrote:
> WAHOO!!!!
Before everyone gets their hopes up, I should point out that this isn't
even at the "talks" stage yet -- just something Phil wants to bring up.
Also, I believe Segal is referring to the _feature film_ rights, not TV
movie rights, in accordance with his statement last year that that's the
next avenue he'd like to explore in relation to Doctor Who.
Shannon
--
/--- Shannon Patrick Sullivan ------------- sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca ---\
| |
| "It's funny how we feel so much but we cannot say a word |
| We are screaming inside, but we can't be heard" |
| -- Sarah McLachlan, "I Will Remember You" |
| |
\------ DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE: www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/whonews.html ------/
Rayctate
Yes, it seems true. Phil Segal bowed out
of a convention to head to England for
talks with the BBC. This may have something
to do with a drama co-ordinator at the BBC
leaving, the latter information reported by the
Times.
Ray
"I'm half-human, on my mother's side."--The eighth Doctor
TOMELORD
>I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you
>to
>know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
>Convention) has just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
>BBC for another Doctor Who film. I knew Phil wouldn't let us down.
>If you want proof of my news, go to the Outpost Gallifrey Website at
>http://www.concentric.net/~jslyon
>
was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
And even if it is true, Segal's track record with science fiction has not been
that good. Seaquest and Earth 2 were big flops, and heck it seems that Fox
won't ever re-broadcast that TV movie.
Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something I
think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
Matt D.
Jestingone
Matt D. (tome...@aol.com) wrote:
>I think it is safer to call it a rumor.
Except that it isn't. This information comes straight from Segal via Shaun
Lyon, organizer of Gally '98. When Segal called Shaun to cancel his appearance
at the convention, he told Shaun -- directly -- that one of the things he'd be
doing on his trip to England was meeting with the BBC to discuss the film
rights to DOCTOR WHO.
Do NOT confuse this information for a report that "DOCTOR WHO is back." It
isn't. The BBC may not like Segal's initial proposal. These are very, VERY
early preliminary talks and may come to nothing. But they ARE happening.
>And even if it is true, Segal's track record with science fiction has not
>been
>that good. Seaquest and Earth 2 were big flops
Segal was frustrated with both shows -- SEAQUEST because the network utterly
subverted his vision of what the show should be -- it wasn't the way he wanted
it done at all -- and EARTH 2 because the timeslot was all wrong... it's should
have been a 9 or 10pm show, and not scheduled against 60 MINUTES at 7pm on a
Sunday, where the counterprogramming, to be the least bit successful, is
usually *family* programming, not a dark, intelligent SF series for a niche
audience.
>As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
>of him if your lucky
Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film* rights,
specifically -- not the television rights.
GSlee45588
>I think it is safer to call it a rumor. A few months ago I was sure there
>was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
>Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
And we shoould thank the "Web Terrorist" for it. Animated Doctor Who is not
something I want to see.
>Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something
>I
>think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
Whether or not Segal failed in regards to the TV Fox movie is a matter of
opinion. Period. What matters is that he worked his ass off to get Doctor Who
back on the air. And he achieved the goal.
And I am fairly positive Joss Wheadon could give a rat's ass less about
Doctor Who
.>As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
>of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
>Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
>
>
Again, that's YOUR opinion.
Doctor Who
Lee: "Ah man, you kill me!!!!"
Master: "You want me to kill you?"
-Doctor Who, "The Enemy Within"
Philip Craggs
TOMELORD wrote:
>
> >I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you
> >to
> >know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
> >Convention) has just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
> >BBC for another Doctor Who film. I knew Phil wouldn't let us down.
> >If you want proof of my news, go to the Outpost Gallifrey Website at
> >http://www.concentric.net/~jslyon
> >
> was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
> Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
>
> won't ever re-broadcast that TV movie.
>
> would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
> I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something I
> think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
>
> of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
> Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
>
similar atmosphere but just with more money. I be you did not complain
about season 16 being gothic did you? I bet you think it was the best
season ever made don't you? Well, the film was gothic and it worked
wonderfully as far as i am concearned. Your probably just upset because
he is not Philip Hincliffe or Graham Roberts (was that the other 4th
Doc's probucer, i can't remember). I for one would be only too pleased
if he would be involved in any future Who projects. And just who is Jos
Whedon?
Jestingone
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>Before everyone gets their hopes up, I should point out that this isn't
>even at the "talks" stage yet -- just something Phil wants to bring up.
Fully understood -- see my other post in this thread.
Dangermouse
Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote
> Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
rights,
> specifically -- not the television rights.
The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
<runs away quickly>
Jon Green
In article <19980206044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, TOMELORD
<tome...@aol.com> wrote something along the lines of...
>And even if it is true, Segal's track record with science fiction has not been
>that good. Seaquest and Earth 2 were big flops, and heck it seems that Fox
>won't ever re-broadcast that TV movie.
>
>Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something I
>think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
>
I think Segal is the man for the job. He has a passion for Who, and
hopefully having done it before, he can learn by his mistakes. Segal may
be the only man who can persuade Paul McGann to retake the part. It was
his influence that got McGann in the first place.
He will need to drop the throwaway half-human and romance crap. That
just got in the way of what could have been a very good TVM.
But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
together at the same time.
--
Jon
"We play the contest again Time Lord....
...Battleships...electronic!"
Check out the Paul Green Hi-Fi website,
for the latest prices and special offers, at:
http://www.pghifi.demon.co.uk
Mike Teague
Dangermouse wrotes:
>
> Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrotes
> > Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
> rights,
> > specifically -- not the television rights.
>
> The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
As I inferred yesterday, as long as its not Golan-Globus (sic)
I'm not too bothered !
/Mike.
Steve Biggs
Mike Teague <etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Dangermouse wrote:
>> Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
>> rights, specifically -- not the television rights.
>>
>> The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
>
>As I inferred yesterday, as long as its not Golan-Globus (sic)
>I'm not too bothered !
<pedant>
Surely you *implied* that yesterday?
</pedant>
Who's Golan-Globus (sic)?
Steve.
--
Please remove the "x" from "ukx" to reply by e-mail.
jonno
TOMELORD wrote:
> I think it is safer to call it a rumor.
It's not. Go to the site and read. It's not.
> A few months ago I was sure there
> was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
> Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
Thank bloody GOD hopes were dashed -- I finally saw Karen's "drawings" for the
series, if you can call them drawings -- crayoned scrawlings would be more
accurate. It would have been utterly, tremendously horrible. Now, animated Who
wouldn't be bad ALONG WITH a theatrical movie or tv series, IF someone decent was
in charge.
> Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
> would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
Except that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the stupidest, silliest shows I've
seen in a very long time. Okay, whatsername that plays Buffy is gorgeous, but
that's about the redeeming merit right there -- the writing's crap, the acting's
crap, the sets are crap, the makeup's crap. If that's how you want Who, then
you're sadly deluded.
> As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
> of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
> Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
Another TV Movie would be JUST FINE.
Aidan Alexander Folkes
Dangermouse wrote:
:
:
: Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote
: > Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
: rights,
: > specifically -- not the television rights.
:
: The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
If it has Paul McGann in yes.
:
:
: <runs away quickly>
Oh, you weren't being serious.
--
Aidan Folkes go Bye Bye!
You will have a cup of tea now, oh go on, you will
you will, you will, you will, you wiLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
Aidan Alexander Folkes
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
[snip]
:
: Before everyone gets their hopes up, I should point out that this isn't
: even at the "talks" stage yet -- just something Phil wants to bring up.
: movie rights, in accordance with his statement last year that that's the
: next avenue he'd like to explore in relation to Doctor Who.
But what about the Lawsuite. Surely that would have to be dealt with before
the feature film rights could be assigned.
--
Aidan Folkes go Bye Bye!
Trying to write random sigs and getting bored
Michael S. Tumilty
Aidan Alexander Folkes wrote in message ...
>Dangermouse wrote:
>:
>: Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote
>: > Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
>: rights,
>: > specifically -- not the television rights.
>:
>: The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
>
>If it has Paul McGann in yes.
Or Rupert Booth!!
-Erin, ever the wishful dreamer
Tim Archer
Jon Green <J...@pghifi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
ery good TVM.
>
> But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
>some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
>this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
>together at the same time.
I think fans should be kept away from any future project, because we get, a
bit self indulgent sometimes.
--
TIM ARCHER
-----------------
w...@aljan.com.au
-----------------
"I'd like to stay here and be normal
But it's just so overrated."
Keith Bradbury
Jon Green wrote:
>
>
> I think Segal is the man for the job. He has a passion for Who, and
> hopefully having done it before, he can learn by his mistakes. Segal may
> be the only man who can persuade Paul McGann to retake the part. It was
> his influence that got McGann in the first place.
Watch out!!! We're talking about the further Canadianization of Who here!!! The
loyalists will be upset...
Hahah, jk
Richard Bignell
> >As I inferred yesterday, as long as its not Golan-Globus (sic)
> >I'm not too bothered !
> Who's Golan-Globus (sic)?
They were the two guys who used to run/own Cannon. They
produced a huge amount of very bad material!
Richard Bignell
Paul Rhodes
af6...@irix.bris.ac.uk (Aidan Alexander Folkes) wrote:
>But what about the Lawsuite. Surely that would have to be dealt with before
>the feature film rights could be assigned.
Er... no. Daltenreys aren't (weren't?) disputing who owns the rights
now, only claiming that BBCWW didn't deal with them fairly at the time
when they did have them.
Paul
Dangermouse
Tim Archer <w...@aljan.com.au> wrote
> > But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
> >some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
> >this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
> >together at the same time.
>
> I think fans should be kept away from any future project, because we get,
a
> bit self indulgent sometimes.
What any moviemaker should do is include a time travel element (else why
bother having a hero with a time machine?). Then lock JMS in a room until
he gets the story done, have Chris Boucher polish up the dialogue, and get
Curtis Hanson to direct.
Either that or let me do it... Lots of people say my work would be better
as films than books, so what the hell? The music should be by Jerry
Goldsmith, naturally. Sean Connery as the Doctor, Julianna Margulies and
Andre Braugher as the companions, Terence Stamp as the Master, and Patrick
Stewart as the new head of UNIT...
Dangermouse
Aidan Alexander Folkes <af6...@irix.bris.ac.uk> wrote
> : The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
>
> If it has Paul McGann in yes.
Unlikely - they'd want a bigger star for a theatrical release. (Can I just
nominate Sean Connery here? It's about time for a more mature and
professorial Doctor again.)
> : <runs away quickly>
>
> Oh, you weren't being serious.
Frayed knot
Steve Biggs
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
[Snip film discussion]
>Sean Connery as the Doctor
Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
arca...@mindspring.com
davr...@aol.com (DavrosDW) wrote:
>...just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
>BBC for another Doctor Who film...
It's oh so early, but I have high hopes in this matter. Cinema may be
just the medium DW needs in order to keep the Beeb happy since even
genre films which aren't blockbusters usually make money anyway
(unless associated with Kevin Costner). I have confidence in Phil
since he beat the odds once already by pulling off the telemovie.
Short of *really* big Hollywood names, who else would the Beeb take
seriously?
I imagine that if Phil succeeds in negotiating something, it will
still be a few years before we'd actually see anything. The timing of
production and eventual release of films is very tricky, and tv-to-big
screen adaptations are a waning trend in Hollywood. Still, good luck
to Phil!
Gary Russell
In article <n8M6VAAV...@pghifi.demon.co.uk>, Jon Green
<J...@pghifi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
> some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
> this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
> together at the same time.
Yup, and then we're back on that JNT-style Merry-Go-Round where he tries
to please all the fans, pleases few, and everyone subsequently hates him
despite doing exactly what they wanted in the first place and never
understands where he went wrong.
Phil ain't *that* stooopid.
g
--
Don't be a victim of expectation
Just make your own life a celebration
Di Rocco Gian Luca D
Aidan Alexander Folkes (af6...@irix.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
:
: But what about the Lawsuite. Surely that would have to be dealt with before
: the feature film rights could be assigned.
Not necessarily. Daltenreys is suing the BBC for damages for a
film they didn't make. They are not suing the BBC for the right
to make the film (they can not ask for both remedies). The rights
to make a new film are available for anyone who wants to buy them.
Since I doubt the Daltenreys will win their lawsuit, maybe
they and Lumiere would like to team up with Segal and use
their funds instead to fund a new movie? :)
Gianluca
Helen Fayle
Dangermouse wrote:
>
> What any moviemaker should do is include a time travel element (else why
> bother having a hero with a time machine?). Then lock JMS in a room until
> he gets the story done,
Yes, seconded...
have Chris Boucher polish up the dialogue,
OK, I've just about forgiven him for "Blake" so ditto
and get Curtis Hanson to direct.
Uh - who?
>
> Either that or let me do it... Lots of people say my work would be better
> as films than books, so what the hell?
Why not"It's a million to one shot but it might just work..."
The music should be by Jerry Goldsmith, naturally.
I'll nominate Basil Poledouris here. ("Rimsky Korsakov's Scherazade" -
sorry- Conan the Barbarian)
Sean Connery as the Doctor,
Not another lisper...;-)
For sheer ability, Christopher Neame. For bankability - Tim Dalton?
(Although the way things usually go, we'd get Tom Cruise...)
Julianna Margulies and
> Andre Braugher as the companions,
Lost me there pal, but I'll nominate Michael Hurst from Herc. and
Marjorie Monaghan from B5 / Space Rangers.
Terence Stamp as the Master,
Agreed, but if unavailable, add a further hunk factor in Kevin Smith
from Xena (well, he's got the beard!, and he is damn good!)
and Patrick Stewart as the new head of UNIT...
No quibble there either!
Now I'll get well out of the line of fire....
--
H
"Without a sequence of events, there is a rush of events.
The rush of events is a horror. This is the Key.
Ultimately, rythm is image and image is rythm.
Ultimately, this myth is random Access" - Imaginos
Aidan Alexander Folkes
Paul Rhodes wrote:
: af6...@irix.bris.ac.uk (Aidan Alexander Folkes) wrote:
:
: >But what about the Lawsuite. Surely that would have to be dealt with before
: >the feature film rights could be assigned.
: Er... no. Daltenreys aren't (weren't?) disputing who owns the rights
: now, only claiming that BBCWW didn't deal with them fairly at the time
: when they did have them.
Oh, good. I was worried.
Has anything actually happened about this case.
I was wondering if when it happened it might generate some interest
in Doctor Who.
--
Aidan Folkes go Bye Bye!
There has been an error in Module EARTH.EXE.
This task will be terminated.
Marcus Durham
In article <19980205233...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, DavrosDW
<davr...@aol.com> cheerily wrote:
>I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you to
>know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
>BBC for another Doctor Who film.
Don't tell us, with Jimmy Hill as the Doctor and God as the companion.
As usual, I'll believe it when I see it.*
* Because if I believe it, it will fall through.
--
Marcus E. Durham
Bates Motel Month, an episode every week!
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/soap/bates.htm
Jestingone
Richard Bignell wrote:
>> Who's Golan-Globus (sic)?
>
>They were the two guys who used to run/own Cannon. They
>produced a huge amount of very bad material!
Yes, but it WAS all can[n]on!
<ba dump bump!>
=runs away=
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
The Mod rattles the cage bars, agitated...
RRRRrrrrrrrrrrr......!
--The Mod
--
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca
Fanfiction & links to the Internet Adventures at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/5422/WhoContents.html
Dangermouse
arca...@mindspring.com wrote
> Short of *really* big Hollywood names, who else would the Beeb take
> seriously?
JMS?
jonno
> this fan liked a completely
> alien non-half-human, non-snogging Doctor.
Ah, the snogging debate again!
Let me be the first to speak out in favor of snogging. I personally enjoy a good
snog now and again, and the Doc should be allowed the same privilage.
>computer.org
On Fri, 06 Feb 98 16:39:02 GMT, s...@mfltd.co.ukx (Steve Biggs) wrote:
>"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>[Snip film discussion]
>>Sean Connery as the Doctor
>
>Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
>sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
God forbid Roger Moore...
>
>Steve.
--
John W Bishop
Here's to tommorow friend and may we all live to see it
Michael S. Tumilty
jonno wrote in message <34DB6B6B...@gw.startribune.com>...
>
>Ah, the snogging debate again!
>
>Let me be the first to speak out in favor of snogging. I personally enjoy a
good
>snog now and again, and the Doc should be allowed the same privilage.
>
NO MORE SNOGGING IN DOCTOR WHO BOOKS!!!!
...it ruins the binding...
Keith Bradbury
j.w.bishop@ computer.org (John Bishop) wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 98 16:39:02 GMT, s...@mfltd.co.ukx (Steve Biggs) wrote:
>
> >"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
> >[Snip film discussion]
> >>Sean Connery as the Doctor
> >
> >Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
> >sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
> God forbid Roger Moore...
> >
> >Steve.
>
HOLD ON A SEC!!!
You can't have Sean Connery as the Doctor, everyone would complain that
Doctor Who would become too Americanized!
Peter Blake
> >some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
> >this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
> >together at the same time.
>
> bit self indulgent sometimes.
What I reckon we need is a few "semi-pro" fans to act as consultants and
make sure no canon-smashing/over-romantic bits get in. Off the top of my
head, what about Paul Cornell or Kate/Jon Blum?
Yours,
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blake : Maths student at Cambridge University, UK - pg...@cam.ac.uk
"Undergraduates owe their happiness chiefly to the fact that they are no
longer at school...The nonsense which was knocked out of them at school is
all gently put back at Oxford or Cambridge" - Sir Max Beerbohm (1872-1956)
M. Keane
In article <19980206044...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
TOMELORD <tome...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something I
>think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
I'd have to agree with this. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is *exactly* how a
new Doctor Who series should be done. Sparse, simple, well-done SFX, great
acting, great writing, great directing, and lots of humor.
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane, Political Science, University of Washington
Associate Professor of Psychogravitational Analysis, University of Ediacara
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve!
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
M. Keane
In article <19980206073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote:
>Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film* rights,
>specifically -- not the television rights.
Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film? At least
the telemovie was done with the intention of a series if it succeeded.
M. Keane
In article <34dc6ba6...@news.cableinet.co.uk>,
j.w.bishop@ <de-spam> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Feb 98 16:39:02 GMT, s...@mfltd.co.ukx (Steve Biggs) wrote:
>
>>"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>>[Snip film discussion]
>>>Sean Connery as the Doctor
>>
>>Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
>>sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
>God forbid Roger Moore...
Wait wait... things are coming Full Circle now... then Dalton and then
Brosnan who was considered for the Doctor at one point... yea!
Brett O'Callaghan
jesti...@aol.com (Jestingone) wrote:
>Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film* rights,
>specifically -- not the television rights.
Oh, fuck no!
Tell me it ain't true, please.
Byeeeee.
--
Doctor Who WhoINFO Database,
Frontline Guide at Fluffy Central - http://www.cbl.com.au/~boc/
Nick Caldwell
On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:14:52 -0600, jonno <hun...@gw.startribune.com>
wrote:
>> Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>> would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>
>Except that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the stupidest, silliest shows I've
>seen in a very long time. Okay, whatsername that plays Buffy is gorgeous, but
>that's about the redeeming merit right there -- the writing's crap, the acting's
>crap, the sets are crap, the makeup's crap. If that's how you want Who, then
>you're sadly deluded.
Them's fighting words around these here parts. I'd get out of town
fast if I were you...
--
Nick Caldwell------------------------------------------------
s32...@student.uq.edu.au | http://student.uq.edu.au/~s326954
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jestingone
M. Keane wrote:
>Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film?
Um... to make money? :)
Also to create public interest in DOCTOR WHO. If a feature film is successful,
not only might there be more feature films, but the interest it spurs just
might get a series back on television...
Ever hear of M*A*S*H?
Skreslet
DavrosDW wrote:
>
> I repeat that this isn't a rumor and I'm not fooling everybody. I want you to
> know that the Outpost Gallifrey website (Official Website of The Gallifrey 98
> Convention) has just got news from Philip Segal that he is in talks with the
> If you want proof of my news, go to the Outpost Gallifrey Website at
> http://www.concentric.net/~jslyon
By God I hope this is true!!! The next movie, if there is one,
MUST have a familliar villian. The TVM with the Master didn't quite cut
it because he had changed so much. We really need the Daleks or the
Cybermen. Both are familliar to many, even some who did not follow the
series would recognize a Dalek if not by name, by shape. I think the
Daleks can be made frightening again. Giving them back the terror they
inspired in the 1960's isn't easy; but I believe it can be done.
Skillful writing, lighting and good use of camera angles are the key.
Nathan A. Skreslet
Just look at Star Trek: First Contact. The inclusion of the Borg and
their proper use was the key to its success. I think it's the best Star
Trek film yet!
Mariane Desautels
M. Keane wrote:
> j.w.bishop@ <de-spam> wrote:
> >(Steve Biggs) wrote:
> >>"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
> >>[Snip film discussion]
> >>>Sean Connery as the Doctor
> >>Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
> >>sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
> >God forbid Roger Moore...
> Wait wait... things are coming Full Circle now... then Dalton and then
> Brosnan who was considered for the Doctor at one point... yea!
Cloister preserve us from such terrible omens! Remember what Full Circle
brought us! Nooooo!!! There must be another way!
Mariane
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
In article <01bd3368$40b8a520$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>,
Dangemouse <mas...@sol.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Keith Bradbury <kbra...@ccsi.tds.net> wrote
>> Doctor Who would become too Americanized!
>
I think you can assume that there is no law that one HAS to use
a smiley ...
Nick
William December Starr
In article <34DB1ADC...@gw.startribune.com>,
jonno <hun...@gw.startribune.com> said:
> Except that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the stupidest,
> silliest shows I've seen in a very long time. Okay, whatsername that
> plays Buffy is gorgeous, but that's about the redeeming merit right
> there -- the writing's crap, the acting's crap, the sets are crap,
> the makeup's crap. If that's how you want Who, then you're sadly
> deluded.
He dissed "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." He must die for that.
ObWho: Anthony Stewart Head ("Giles" on BtVS) would make an
_excellent_ Doctor.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
William December Starr
In article <19980206073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
jesti...@aol.com (Jestingone) said:
> Segal was frustrated with both shows -- SEAQUEST because the
> network utterly subverted his vision of what the show should be --
> it wasn't the way he wanted it done at all -- and EARTH 2 because
> the timeslot was all wrong... it's should have been a 9 or 10pm
> show, and not scheduled against 60 MINUTES at 7pm on a Sunday,
> where the counterprogramming, to be the least bit successful, is
> usually *family* programming, not a dark, intelligent SF series
> for a niche audience.
EARTH 2 also was murdered by NBC pre-emptions, as I recall. The
show had a semi-serial format, and I bet of you looked at all the
consecutive Sundays between the show's debut and it's cancellation,
it would turn out that it was only shown on about half of them.
Alden Bates
arca...@mindspring.com (arca...@mindspring.com) writes:
>I imagine that if Phil succeeds in negotiating something, it will
>still be a few years before we'd actually see anything.
Oh no! I've just thought of something! If the BBC agree, this
could jeopardise the Animated Who series!
And I had my crayons and sticky tape all ready too!
Alden.
--
_______________http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~abates/________________
(______aba...@wn.planet.gen.nz | al...@bates.wn.planet.gen.nz_______)
The opinions of this poster are silly, and he is currently undergoing
corrective therapy.
Dangermouse
Helen Fayle <Helen...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote
> and get Curtis Hanson to direct.
>
> Uh - who?
LA Confidential - best movie of 1997 by a long, long way.
> Why not"It's a million to one shot but it might just work..."
Exactly.
> The music should be by Jerry Goldsmith, naturally.
> I'll nominate Basil Poledouris here. ("Rimsky Korsakov's Scherazade" -
> sorry- Conan the Barbarian)
I'd maybe get him to do the theme - he'd be good for a strong underbeat.
But not the full score. (Conan The Barbarian is one of thetop ten movie
scores ever, but the rest of his work is largely disappointing). Depends on
the tone of the film, though. For example, as far as my work's concerned,
I'd nominate
White Darkness- Basil Poledouris
First Frontier- David Arnold
Sanctuary- James Horner
Lords Of The Storm- John Williams
Shadow Of Weng Chiang- Jerry Goldsmith
Dark Path- Chris Franke
Face Of The Enemy- David Arnold again
Mission Impractical- Michael Kamen
Just to show how it would vary according to type of story.
> Sean Connery as the Doctor,
>
> Not another lisper...;-)
Absholutely. The name'sh Who; Doctor Who...
> For sheer ability, Christopher Neame. For bankability - Tim Dalton?
> (Although the way things usually go, we'd get Tom Cruise...)
You need a bigger name than Neame for sure- probably bigger than Dalton as
well.
If not as old as Connery, then how about Steve Martin (asbestos suit on,
but trust me, I know what I'm doing), Richard O'Brien (who I'd rather did
the TV series), Jonathan Pryce, or Charles Dance (who could also make a
good Master, actually)
> Julianna Margulies and
Carol Hathaway in ER
> > Andre Braugher as the companions,
Pembleton in Homicide
> Terence Stamp as the Master,
>
> Agreed, but if unavailable, add a further hunk factor in Kevin Smith
> from Xena (well, he's got the beard!, and he is damn good!)
I still vote for Stamp, of course, but other choices: Richard E Grant,
Charles Dance, or, there's absolutely no one else te y can get, Gary
Oldman.
Dangermouse
maub <maub05a...@dial.pipex.com> wrote
> Just what I didn't want. More of Segal's half-human, snogging, living in
> the batcave stuff. I was hoping someone else more sensible would pick it
> up in a few years. Segal totally ignores everything great about Who, and
> what he does keep, he gets horribly wrong.
I'm glad somebody said this...
Azaxyr
Peter Blake <pg...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>What I reckon we need is a few "semi-pro" fans to act as consultants and
>make sure no canon-smashing/over-romantic bits get in. Off the top of my
>head, what about Paul Cornell or Kate/Jon Blum?
Off the top of MY head, a Dr Who movie that had ideas in it
from any of those people would be utter crap.
I'm actually glad Dr Who was cancelled before these people
got a chance to write for the show. It saved us from having to
witness JNT's interpretation of Timewyrm:Revelation, or worse -
Vampire Science.
"All these worlds...
...will make excellent sites for our garbage dumps."
Azaxyr
Skreslet <skre...@erols.com> writes:
> By God I hope this is true!!! The next movie, if there is one,
>MUST have a familliar villian. The TVM with the Master didn't quite cut
>it because he had changed so much. We really need the Daleks or the
>Cybermen. Both are familliar to many, even some who did not follow the
>series would recognize a Dalek if not by name, by shape. I think the
>Daleks can be made frightening again. Giving them back the terror they
>inspired in the 1960's isn't easy; but I believe it can be done.
>Skillful writing, lighting and good use of camera angles are the key.
I think it should have the Ice Warriors in it. Preferably, they
should bring Azaxyr back from the dead. (why not, they did
this with the Master like five times!
)
Dangermouse
Dangermouse
Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote
> >Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film?
>
> Um... to make money? :)
>
> Also to create public interest in DOCTOR WHO. If a feature film is
successful,
> not only might there be more feature films, but the interest it spurs
just
> might get a series back on television...
>
> Ever hear of M*A*S*H?
More notably, ever heard of Star Trek?
Dangermouse
Skreslet <skre...@erols.com> wrote
> Skillful writing, lighting and good use of camera angles are the key.
<Tarkin>
Skillful writing? From the makers of the TVM? I think you overestimate
their chances...
</Tarkin>
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
McIntee:
> The thing is, if it's a movie... will it be canon?
Folkes:
> If it has Paul McGann in yes.
McIntee:
> (Can I just nominate Sean Connery here? It's about time for a more
>mature and professorial Doctor again.)
Me:
<Rolls eyes> Why is it always the same few ‘Big Names’ that are
nominated for these types of things?????????
McIntee:
>they'd want a bigger star for a theatrical release.
Tell that to George Lucas...
(Anyway, if an older fellow ends up being the Doctor on the big screen,
it should be someone like Jacobi!!!) HAW! <ducks>
--The Mod
--
bb...@freenet.carleton.ca
Fanfiction & links to the Internet Adventures at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/5422/WhoContents.html
TOMELORD
>
>
>
>>TOMELORD wrote:
>
>> I think it is safer to call it a rumor.
>
>It's not. Go to the site and read. It's not.
But who knows, Segal could of said that because he didn't want to attend the
convention. Perhaps all he had to talk about was that there is nothing going
on with Doctor Who. Perhaps he doesn't want to loose face. Perhaps too many
fans blame him for the TV limbo that Dr. Who is in now, heaven knows I do.
>> A few months ago I was sure there
>> was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
>> Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
>
>Thank bloody GOD hopes were dashed -- I finally saw Karen's "drawings" for
>the
>series, if you can call them drawings -- crayoned scrawlings would be more
>accurate. It would have been utterly, tremendously horrible. Now, animated
>Who
>wouldn't be bad ALONG WITH a theatrical movie or tv series, IF someone decent
>was
>in charge.
Oh I was just kidding, I knew nothing would come of that Dr. Who animated
project. No one can take a joke around here.
>> Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>> would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>
>Except that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of the stupidest, silliest shows
>I've
>seen in a very long time. Okay, whatsername that plays Buffy is gorgeous, but
>that's about the redeeming merit right there -- the writing's crap, the
>acting's
>crap, the sets are crap, the makeup's crap. If that's how you want Who, then
>you're sadly deluded.
Well, that is just your opinion, I think Buffy is great, the critics think it
is great. It is one of the highest rated shows on the WB. I bet you
have never even seen more than one episode. A lot of your comments
that you made about "Buffy" have been made about Dr. Who. And
Whovians know that none of them are true about the good Doctor.
>> As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
>> of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
>> Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
>
>Another TV Movie would be JUST FINE.
Not another TV Movie or feature film that terminates Dr. Who forever.
Matt D.
TOMELORD
>
>>I think it is safer to call it a rumor. A few months ago I was sure there
>>was a chance there could be a Dr. Who cartoon, but thanks to some "Web
>>Terrorist" or something all hopes were dashed :)
>
>something I want to see.
I was just joking for goodness sake, you people have no sense of humor
whatsoever.
>>Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>>would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>>I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series. Something
>>I
>>think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
>
> Whether or not Segal failed in regards to the TV Fox movie is a matter of
>opinion. Period.
Perhaps, but I thought the intention of the movie was to open the door for a
new series, it didn't. I thought the movie was at least supposed to get good
ratings, isn't that how networks usually determine success or failure, it
didn't get good ratings. How was it a success?
>What matters is that he worked his ass off to get Doctor Who
>back on the air. And he achieved the goal.
If that movie was the result of Segal working his ass off, I can't imagine what
a lame Segal effort would be. Two hours of TV static?
Doctor Who: 2032?
> And I am fairly positive Joss Wheadon could give a rat's ass less about
>Doctor Who
Ah, but you don't know this for sure. Wynona Ryder's andriod. character in
Alien:Resurrection (scripted by Whedon) was called an Auton. The "Judge" a
demon from an episode of Buffy reminded me a lot of "The Destroyer" from
"Battlefield". I think there is a hint of
a Dr. Who fan there. And IMHO, "Buffy" has a lot of qualities that are
similar to Dr. Who, including a British fatherly figure in "Giles",
Buffy's "Watcher"
>.>As for all you Segal supporters, you may get another TV movie out
>>of him if your lucky, but I doubt very much it will go beyond that.
>>Doctor Who will be banished back to TV limbo forever.
> Again, that's YOUR opinion.
Well, how many more failures do you think it would take, to do Doctor Who in
completely?
Matt
Jestingone
tome...@aol.com wrote:
>But who knows, Segal could of said that because he didn't want to attend the
>convention. Perhaps all he had to talk about was that there is nothing going
>on with Doctor Who. Perhaps he doesn't want to loose face.
= rolls eyes =
Oh, PLEASE...
Saulchurch
Dowgiert:
>McIntee:
>>they'd want a bigger star for a theatrical release.
>
>
>Tell that to George Lucas...
Lucas himself is the biggest star of his movies, especially the new Star Wars
film(s). That said, Samuel L. Jackson is a *pretty big* star...
-Ben Varkentine
"Fashion-Turn to the left
Fashion-Turn to the right
We are the goon squad and we're coming to town
Beep-Beep - Beep-Beep
Listen to me-Don't listen to me
Talk to me-Don't talk to me"-Fashion, Bowie
Cory Mccasland
al...@bates.wn.planet.WHAP.gen.nz (Alden Bates) wrote:
>
>arca...@mindspring.com (arca...@mindspring.com) writes:
>>I imagine that if Phil succeeds in negotiating something, it will
>>still be a few years before we'd actually see anything.
>
>Oh no! I've just thought of something! If the BBC agree, this
>could jeopardise the Animated Who series!
>
>And I had my crayons and sticky tape all ready too!
And I just finished my script, "The Terrorifying Beast of
Wakka-ja-Wakka Sqaure"!
CDM
Cory Mccasland
jesti...@aol.com (Jestingone) wrote:
>
>M. Keane wrote:
>
>>Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film?
>
>Um... to make money? :)
>
>Also to create public interest in DOCTOR WHO. If a feature film is
successful,
>not only might there be more feature films, but the interest it spurs
just
>might get a series back on television...
>
>Ever hear of M*A*S*H?
Even if they didn't start a new series from it, I'd
rather have a theatrical movie every two to three
years than nothing at all.
CDM
Cory Mccasland
Richard Bignell <xz...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> >As I inferred yesterday, as long as its not Golan-Globus (sic)
>> >I'm not too bothered !
>
>> Who's Golan-Globus (sic)?
>
>They were the two guys who used to run/own Cannon. They
>produced a huge amount of very bad material!
Including every Chuck Norris movie in the
eighties, Masters of the Universe, Alien from LA,
and Captain America.
CDM
(but they never got their paws on Spiderman)
cha...@usa.pipeline.com
Jon Green <J...@pghifi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
>some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
>this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
>together at the same time.
IMO that's what hurt the TVM in the first place. He seemed to go out
of his way to throw in as many references to the old series as
possible, muddying the waters of an already vague plot. The only hope
for a successful new series is to make a *new series*.
Anywho,
Lance Hall
_________________________________________________________________________
"What I'm saying here, in case you're a yotz who needs things codified simply
and directly, is that Doctor Who is the apex, the pinnacle, the tops,
the Louvre museum, the Colosseum, and other et cetera."
---Harlan Ellison
_________________________________________________________________________
Cory Mccasland
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>Helen Fayle <Helen...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote
>> and get Curtis Hanson to direct.
>>
>> Uh - who?
>
Not that hard in the year of Batman and Robin,
The Postman, and Home Alone 3.
>> The music should be by Jerry Goldsmith, naturally.
>> I'll nominate Basil Poledouris here. ("Rimsky Korsakov's Scherazade" -
>> sorry- Conan the Barbarian)
I'm already thinking of the popular music soundtrack.
Definitly get Erasure to re-do the theme.
>> Agreed, but if unavailable, add a further hunk factor in Kevin Smith
>> from Xena (well, he's got the beard!, and he is damn good!)
>
>I still vote for Stamp, of course, but other choices: Richard E Grant,
>Charles Dance, or, there's absolutely no one else te y can get, Gary
>Oldman.
Or David Bowie.
CDM
(I still say Jonothan Frakes would be good)
John Long
Dangermouse wrote:
>
> Either that or let me do it... Lots of people say my work would be better
> as films than books, so what the hell? The music should be by Jerry
> Goldsmith, naturally. Sean Connery as the Doctor, Julianna Margulies and
> Andre Braugher as the companions, Terence Stamp as the Master, and Patrick
> Stewart as the new head of UNIT...
I always thought Terence Stamp would be the perfect master - don't know
about Connery though. McGann would be alright for the reprisal and it
would work nice with continuity. We don't need a regeneration getting
in the way of a good story and the biggest blowout adventure that we can
fit onto the big screen. If this thing is going to be a feature film
than I want them to go all out - leave nothing to be desired - give us
the biggest and boldest DW we've ever seen - with a budget of at least
90 million.
--
JOHN LONG jl...@epix.net
*****************************
Current Assignment - UNIT 841
Rebecca K. Dowgiert
CDM:
>I'm already thinking of the popular music soundtrack.
>Definitly get Erasure to re-do the theme.
Helen Fayle:
>> Agreed, but if unavailable, add a further hunk factor in Kevin Smith
>> from Xena (well, he's got the beard!, and he is damn good!)
<Grin> He痴 gotta say: 前h *yeah*... in that way he do *so* well..>:-)
CDM:
>I still vote for Stamp, of course, but other choices: Richard E Grant,
>Charles Dance, or, there's absolutely no one else te y can get, Gary
>Oldman.
>Or David Bowie.
Not unless he痴 on the soundtrack too...
Shannon Patrick Sullivan
Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 7 Feb 1998 04:21:41 GMT, I overheard TOMELORD say:
> But who knows, Segal could of said that because he didn't want to attend the
> convention. Perhaps all he had to talk about was that there is nothing going
> fans blame him for the TV limbo that Dr. Who is in now, heaven knows I do.
Segal is a professional; he's not going to lie about something like this
just to make up an excuse. More importantly, he's not going to agree to go
to a convention, then just change his mind; if he didn't want to go,
he'd've said no from the start.
And, frankly, anyone who blames Phil Segal for the current lack of
production is a fool; there are plenty of people to point fingers at, but
the man who tried his damndest to resurrect Doctor Who is not one of them.
Shannon
--
/--- Shannon Patrick Sullivan ------------- sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca ---\
| |
| "It's funny how we feel so much but we cannot say a word |
| We are screaming inside, but we can't be heard" |
| -- Sarah McLachlan, "I Will Remember You" |
| |
\------ DOCTOR WHO NEWS PAGE: www.physics.mun.ca/~sps/whonews.html ------/
R.J. Smith
In article <01bd3368$40b8a520$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>,
Dangermouse <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>What???
He's right, you know, they would.
Of course, the people who always complain about Who being too Americanized
have not in the past exactly been careful about their facts, so I don't
see a little thing like this stopping them...
- Robert Smith?
Jestingone
Dangermouse wrote:
>Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote
>> >Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film?
>>
>> Um... to make money? :)
>>
>> Also to create public interest in DOCTOR WHO. If a feature film is
>successful,
>> not only might there be more feature films, but the interest it spurs
>just
>> might get a series back on television...
>>
>> Ever hear of M*A*S*H?
>
>More notably, ever heard of Star Trek?
I thought of this right after clicking on the "Send!" button! (As can be
attested to by the thread I just started, "Why BotherDoing a DW Feature Film?")
:)
Philip Craggs
Americanised, but it was not as much as many fans thought it would be,
so rather than admit they were wrong they keep going on about it. Also,
you cannot have a go at the production for a weak script. It is
perfectly possible that if it were brought back tommorow it would have
the strongest script ever. This is because Dr Who has never just been
written by one person. It would not ever be. And whatever happened, Paul
McGann should return, and he has been in films (see Alien 3, Downtime
(not the Who spin-off) and that one about fairies).
Rebecca J. Robinson
In article <34DBA3...@erols.com>, Skreslet <skre...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> By God I hope this is true!!! The next movie, if there is one,
>MUST have a familliar villian.
I disagree. I think the next time anybody makes Doctor Who they ought to use
an ENTIRELY NEW alien. All the old Doctor Who monsters are old hat. Not only
that, they just don't look very cool these days. They have too much continuity
behind them. Most importantly they're just plain too fanwanky.
Doctor Who is and has always been about the Doctor, not the Daleks or the
Cybermen or the Master. The books have done a great job of inventing new
and fascinating races.
I think the TVM (as much as I liked it), failed in that respect. They brought
back an old villain and didn't do anything particularly interesting with him.
Furthermore, he was way too human-looking for him to be a successful bad guy in
a new TV movie. That, combined with the contemporary setting of the movie,
made it virtually impossible to convey the idea that Doctor Who spans all of
space and time... not just Earth in the 20th century.
What Doctor Who needs most to succeed is fresh ideas, not leftovers from the
series. I mean what's the point of a NEW Doctor Who if it's just going over
ground we've tread before? Why bother with Daleks, we've already got tons
of Dalek stories! Same goes for all the old bad guys.
New monsters, that's what I want to see. Weird ones with lots of special
effects. And Paul McGann; that's all I ask.
Becky Robinson
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
star...@cyberhighway.net | http://www.cyberhighway.net/~infynity/becky.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangermouse
Cory Mccasland <TFZ...@prodigy.com> wrote
> (I still say Jonothan Frakes would be good)
I hope you mean as director, and not as the Doctor or the Master...
Peter Blake
Azaxyr <aza...@aol.com> wrote:
> Peter Blake <pg...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> >What I reckon we need is a few "semi-pro" fans to act as consultants and
> >make sure no canon-smashing/over-romantic bits get in. Off the top of my
> >head, what about Paul Cornell or Kate/Jon Blum?
>
> Off the top of MY head, a Dr Who movie that had ideas in it
> from any of those people would be utter crap.
> I'm actually glad Dr Who was cancelled before these people
> got a chance to write for the show. It saved us from having to
> witness JNT's interpretation of Timewyrm:Revelation, or worse -
> Vampire Science.
I wasn't suggesting these people should write the plot (though I'm not
against the idea), merely that they know what they're talking about
(Paul has Wavelength and 3 eps of The Ward to his name and ISTR that Jon
has done a scriptwriting course), plus they know/understand a whole pile
of stuff about the Who "thang" - therefore they can keep the film "on the
straight and narrow".
Yours,
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blake : Maths student at Cambridge University, UK - pg...@cam.ac.uk
"Undergraduates owe their happiness chiefly to the fact that they are no
longer at school...The nonsense which was knocked out of them at school is
all gently put back at Oxford or Cambridge" - Sir Max Beerbohm (1872-1956)
Graham Nelson
In article <6bgs2o$l...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
<URL:mailto:cha...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> IMO that's what hurt the TVM in the first place. He seemed to go out
> of his way to throw in as many references to the old series as
> possible, muddying the waters of an already vague plot. The only hope
> for a successful new series is to make a *new series*.
Its references to the old series were charming and unobtrusive,
in my view. It failed, and deserved to fail, simply because it
was a badly-written piece of drama, entirely lacking in mystery,
fantasy or science fiction. They tried to create something like
an Anne Rice vampire novel, but with the Dr as the female lead.
This failed because (i) there was a lot of slack, unimportant
and unintriguing plot (the clock, etc.); (ii) the villain, i.e.
Eric Roberts, was hopelessly miscast and anyway couldn't act his
way out of a paper bag. Add to this the juvenile froth of the
street kid whose name I have already forgotten, and what's left?
A very nice performance by Paul McGann, playing mostly against
his lines, an interesting part for the supporting actress, and
one quite good set (though it doesn't deserve quite the degree
of praise it's been given). Some of the direction wasn't bad.
Something which I don't think American TV even believes yet
is that quality of writing -- which does not mean predictability
or conformity to audience expectations -- is a significant part
of the production values which are otherwise held to be all-
important. (Enormous effort seems to go into constructing the
series bible, evolving the concepts, etc. And then trashy,
second-rate scripts are written in a hurry by people who are
hired and fired on a weekly basis, don't read each others'
contributions to the show and have no idea where the whole thing
is going. Well, enough general rant -- this was a one-off film,
after all, not a series.)
Still. The film was an aesthetic failure because nothing
interesting happened in it. Mr Segal was responsible for
getting a good script, hashing out a story-line and so forth.
However much one admires his determination and good intentions,
and I really did like his ambition to cohere with the old
series -- he was responsible for a turkey.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Dangermouse
Peter Blake <pg...@cam.ac.uk> wrote
> ISTR that Jon has done a scriptwriting course),
A scriptwriting course isn't exactly experience. Get the two Chris' -
Boucher and Bidmead...
Or I'd jump at it if anybody asked. (Having done the odd bit of screen
stuff)
Chris Casino
Shannon Patrick Sullivan wrote:
>
> Whilst vacationing on Gallifrey on 7 Feb 1998 04:21:41 GMT, I overheard TOMELORD say:
> > But who knows, Segal could of said that because he didn't want to attend the
> > convention. Perhaps all he had to talk about was that there is nothing going
> > on with Doctor Who. Perhaps he doesn't want to loose face. Perhaps too many
> > fans blame him for the TV limbo that Dr. Who is in now, heaven knows I do.
>
> Segal is a professional; he's not going to lie about something like this
> just to make up an excuse. More importantly, he's not going to agree to go
> to a convention, then just change his mind; if he didn't want to go,
> he'd've said no from the start.
>
> And, frankly, anyone who blames Phil Segal for the current lack of
> production is a fool; there are plenty of people to point fingers at, but
> the man who tried his damndest to resurrect Doctor Who is not one of them.
>
> Shannon
That's right! He worked for seven years to get the movie we saw to begin
with, I'm sure if he has to do another seven years, he will. After all
the BS the guy went through to get the TVM to us, he could probably do
another seven years standing on his head. Let's just hope he
doesn't have to.
Besides that, he understands Whovians because he's just as big a Whovian
as anyone else on this newsgroup. He worked hard to get the TVM to us,
he'll work harder to get the cinematic movie to us.
"And that's the bottom line... 'Cause Clams Casino said so!"
Michael S. Tumilty
William December Starr wrote in message <6bgtk2$9...@crl7.crl.com>...
>ObWho: Anthony Stewart Head ("Giles" on BtVS) would make an
>_excellent_ Doctor.
>
YES YES YES YES YES!!!
I've been saying this ever since Buffy came out! I WANT Giles
to be the Doctor. I NEED Giles to be the Doctor!
-Erin (St.)
President of Save Our Doctor: Television's Hero In Space
Proudly telling the Beeb to SOD THIS since 1997
Keith Bradbury
John Long wrote:
> Dangermouse wrote:
> >
> > Either that or let me do it... Lots of people say my work would be better
> > as films than books, so what the hell? The music should be by Jerry
> > Goldsmith, naturally. Sean Connery as the Doctor, Julianna Margulies and
> > Andre Braugher as the companions, Terence Stamp as the Master, and Patrick
> > Stewart as the new head of UNIT...
>
> I always thought Terence Stamp would be the perfect master - don't know
> about Connery though. McGann would be alright for the reprisal and it
> would work nice with continuity. We don't need a regeneration getting
> in the way of a good story and the biggest blowout adventure that we can
> fit onto the big screen. If this thing is going to be a feature film
> than I want them to go all out - leave nothing to be desired - give us
> the biggest and boldest DW we've ever seen - with a budget of at least
> 90 million.
No, wait, I've got it! How about Leslie Nielson as the Doctor, Julie Haggarty as
the companion, Steve Martin as the Master, and get William Shatner to produce
it.
Marcus Durham
In article <ant071252868M+4%@gnelson.demon.co.uk>
gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk "Graham Nelson" writes:
> In article <6bgs2o$l...@camel21.mindspring.com>,
> <URL:mailto:cha...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMO that's what hurt the TVM in the first place. He seemed to go out
> > of his way to throw in as many references to the old series as
> > possible, muddying the waters of an already vague plot. The only hope
> > for a successful new series is to make a *new series*.
>
> Its references to the old series were charming and unobtrusive,
> in my view. It failed, and deserved to fail, simply because it
> was a badly-written piece of drama, entirely lacking in mystery,
> fantasy or science fiction.
True, but that isn't a reason why it failed. It failed because nobody watched
it. That does kind of cause problems because not enough people got to the stage
of watching it. From my understanding this is because it was shown on a tin-pot
station that only has a few highly rated show. Rather like showing the
telemovie on BBC2 and then complaining if it didn't get 10 million viewers. 10
million is possible, but you'd be bloody lucky.
They tried to create something like
> an Anne Rice vampire novel, but with the Dr as the female lead.
> This failed because (i) there was a lot of slack, unimportant
> and unintriguing plot (the clock, etc.); (ii) the villain, i.e.
> Eric Roberts, was hopelessly miscast and anyway couldn't act his
> way out of a paper bag.
[snip]
But that's never stopped Who before. Look at Ainley.
>
> Still. The film was an aesthetic failure because nothing
> interesting happened in it. Mr Segal was responsible for
> getting a good script, hashing out a story-line and so forth.
> However much one admires his determination and good intentions,
> and I really did like his ambition to cohere with the old
> series -- he was responsible for a turkey.
Oh dear. We seem to be going through another "let's blame everything on one
person". JNT must be thanking God for Segal appearing on the Who scene.
Segal worked miracles in impossible circumstances. His only mistake was
thinking that a quality product could originate and survive in the USA. The US
networks want paper thin crap which is, at best, rubbish. Look at what Fox did
to the telemovie. They landed us with Roberts and tried to get rid of McGann.
They messed around with the format (kissing Doctors indeed!) and the end result
was a product that failed to grab or excite. I was left feeling very let down.
It's not enjoyable, it's not gripping and it's not fun. It's just 90 minutes of
a rather mediocre product that has "Doctor Who" stuck on the front. Perhaps if
they had an experienced Doctor Who script writer things would have been
different. A producer is not the be all and end all, the script editor and
writers are more important.
As for a film, well it might work. Films don't have to be made in the USA
these days. If the UK is good enough for Star Wars then it's good enough for
Who. It's certainly cheaper and it would be easier to get experienced Who
people on-board. The people with experience who know how to produce a quality
product and would give their right arm to play around on a big budget.
If it's just another dreary US made sci-fi film then it will fail. It will be
out-shone by Star Wars and the other new stuff that's due. If it was a UK made
movie then it might just suceed. On the current form it would be interesting to
see.
--
Marcus Durham - Stuck in DIS.
Turnpike upgrade buggered up. :-(
Mike Kenwood
Philip Craggs <"donald...@diamond.co.uk"@diamond.co.uk> wrote:
{SNIP] .
> It is perfectly possible that if it were brought back tommorow it would have
> the strongest script ever. This is because Dr Who has never just been
> written by one person. It would not ever be.
We might get an excellent script - let's hope so. But the precedants don't look
good. In the case of the Segal movie they were still doing major rewrites at the
last minute, trying to decide whether the Doctor would regenerate because he'd
been (i) exterminated by Daleks (ii) bitten by the snake/Master etc.(If the
rumours about this at the time are to be believed.)
Or - a more extreme example, the latest Bond movie - they were still arguring
about the plot and cutting characters out in the middle of filming, whie
(allegedly) the writer and director weren't on speaking terms!!!
This is not exclusive to American films, and I'm not trying to blame individuals
like Segal here either. It's the process. Too many current film/TV shows seem to
be (re)written by committee and messed about with so much before they get to the
screen - overall it looks like they're making it up as they go along! This looks
like disorganisation, not perfectionism.Too many chiefs. What we need is for
the powers that be to get it 90% right first time - if the BBC script editors
could do it why can't others? End of whinge.
> And whatever happened, Paul
> McGann should return, and he has been in films (see Alien 3, Downtime
> (not the Who spin-off) and that one about fairies).
Absolutely - if they can persuade him. He may not want to risk it for a second
time..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."
Mike Kenwood (mken...@astra.global.net.uk)
William Duffy
>> >What I reckon we need is a few "semi-pro" fans to act as consultants and
>> >make sure no canon-smashing/over-romantic bits get in.
>
actual series didn't succeed partly due to the fact that the production team
tried to please the fans too much, thus alienating other members of the
viewing public who didn't have a clue as to what was going on.
I don't see anything wrong with the Doctor falling in love per se, as long
as it is done sensibly. It wasn't in the telemovie since he had only known
Grace for about one day, whereas he must have got to know all his other
travelling companions a lot better.
As long as the next incarnation sticks to a formula we all know and love,
and gives us a decent story into the bargain, along with good actors,
characterisation, drama, etc., then I'll be happy.
And particularly, in order to sell it to the general public, not do what I
have already emphasised above.
William
PS Don't get your hopes too high
William Duffy
>>Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
rights,
>>specifically -- not the television rights.
>
>Oh, fuck no!
>
>Tell me it ain't true, please.
>
Just because the tele-movie was a bit of a let down isn't an indication of
how the movie could be.
Every producer has his bombs.
William
William Duffy
>Anyway, I'm telling Segal is not the person you want producing Dr. Who. I
>would really like to see Dr. Who produced by Joss Whedon.
>I think he could really capture the spirit of the orginal series.
Something I
>think Segal grossly failed to do in the Fox TV movie.
>
Who is Joss Whedon and what has he done.
William
PS I vote for Paul Stone
William Duffy
M. Keane wrote in message <6bfvkk$m0h$1...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>...
>In article <19980206073...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>Jestingone <jesti...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Except that Segal is going to the BBC to talk about the *feature film*
rights,
>>specifically -- not the television rights.
>
>Goodness, what would be the point of a Doctor Who feature film? At least
>the telemovie was done with the intention of a series if it succeeded.
Because nobody bothered about the TV series afterwards, and also what with
movie versions of just about every TV show ever made being released, then
why not?
As long as they don't go the way of most movies, and replace good
characterisation with a multitude of SFX, and it has a good cast, then I
won't mind it.
A good script would help as well.
William
Jon Green
In article <gary-06029...@th-eng04-022.pool.dircon.co.uk>, Gary
Russell <ga...@dircon.co.uk> wrote something along the lines of...
>In article <n8M6VAAV...@pghifi.demon.co.uk>, Jon Green
><J...@pghifi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> But *IF* he can get the film/TV rights again, perhaps he can set up
>> some kind of forum to discuss with the fans what is needed. Of course,
>> this could be extremely dangerous, if he tries to please everyone
>> together at the same time.
>
>to please all the fans, pleases few, and everyone subsequently hates him
>despite doing exactly what they wanted in the first place and never
>understands where he went wrong.
>
>Phil ain't *that* stooopid.
>
>g
Yeh, perhaps I should have refined the statement. Perhaps we should
have a fan "task force" rather than a forum. It could be made up of
Segal, and the current book authors.
A big screen film of Doctor Who is not going to have the budget of
Independence Day or Men In Black. Both were crap, but people liked them
because of their gloss. So a Who film would need to be well plotted,
deep, and perhaps(maybe-maybe not!) reasonably dark. Film tone not
lighting!
In my opinion the BBC books are going from strength to strength. The
current 'Option Lock' has had me hooked from the start. And has all the
themes and complexities that would make a good film.
--
Jon
"We play the contest again Time Lord....
...Strip Poker!"
Check out the Paul Green Hi-Fi website,
for the latest prices and special offers, at:
http://www.pghifi.demon.co.uk
Dangermouse
William Duffy <x...@iinet.net.au> wrote
> Just because the tele-movie was a bit of a let down isn't an indication
of
> how the movie could be.
> Every producer has his bombs.
most of them have succeses as well - hell, even Michael Winner and Wong
Jing have made at least *one* good thing during their career. Segal hasn't.
Dangermouse
Marcus Durham <Mar...@zenn.demon.co.uk> wrote
> A producer is not the be all and end all, the script editor and
> writers are more important.
The problem being that Segal was instructing Jacobs to include all these
disparate bits of previous scripts (the snake-Master, the kiss, the
half-human thing etc) rather than letting him come up with a straight
script and then seeing what would work.
William Duffy
>> And, frankly, anyone who blames Phil Segal for the current lack of
>> production is a fool; there are plenty of people to point fingers at, but
>> the man who tried his damndest to resurrect Doctor Who is not one of
them.
>>
>> Shannon
>
>That's right! He worked for seven years to get the movie we saw to begin
>with, I'm sure if he has to do another seven years, he will. After all
>the BS the guy went through to get the TVM to us, he could probably do
>another seven years standing on his head. Let's just hope he
>doesn't have to.
>
>Besides that, he understands Whovians because he's just as big a Whovian
>as anyone else on this newsgroup. He worked hard to get the TVM to us,
>he'll work harder to get the cinematic movie to us.
>
to having to put in certain elements in order to please Fox. I think that if
the story had been the way most fans would have liked it to be, it would
never have been made.
The only way to get the Tele-Movie made at all would have been via bowing to
the pressure from the network for certain elements in the story. If a series
was made from that, then Segal would probably have had more control over the
storylines.
I hope he can persuade to get Paul McGann back. I think he would consider it
if he received a script he can really get his teeth into!
William
William Duffy
>> I think Segal is the man for the job. He has a passion for Who, and
>> hopefully having done it before, he can learn by his mistakes. Segal may
>> be the only man who can persuade Paul McGann to retake the part. It was
>> his influence that got McGann in the first place.
>
I thought it was also Sylvester's influence?
>Watch out!!! We're talking about the further Canadianization of Who here!!!
The
>loyalists will be upset...
>
This excerpt you have used confuses me. Paul McGann is British!
William
William Duffy
Keith Bradbury wrote in message <34DB7184...@ccsi.tds.net>...
>
>
>j.w.bishop@ computer.org (John Bishop) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 98 16:39:02 GMT, s...@mfltd.co.ukx (Steve Biggs) wrote:
>>
>> >"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>> >[Snip film discussion]
>> >>Sean Connery as the Doctor
>> >
>> >Well, he'd manage to do a great Gallifreyan accent, but I'm not
>> >sure I'd approve if he regenerated into George Lazenby again.
>> God forbid Roger Moore...
>> >
>> >Steve.
>>
>
> HOLD ON A SEC!!!
>
>You can't have Sean Connery as the Doctor, everyone would complain that
>Doctor Who would become too Americanized!
>
You must be referring to a previous post that I missed?
William
William Duffy
>Helen Fayle <Helen...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote
>> and get Curtis Hanson to direct.
>>
> Get Terry Gilliam or (finally) Ridley Scott to direct.
>> The music should be by Jerry Goldsmith, naturally.
>
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! No more dull, ordinary and boring Star Trek-type of
music, please. The music for a Doctor Who movie should be different to all
of that. Get Philip Glass, Christopher Franke (or his old mates, Tangerine
Dream), Brian Eno, or someone else who has the ability to make creative,
imaginative music that doesn't necessarily have to be musical all of the
time, and are able to do a better job than many orchestras.
I only hope he doesn't employ the same person who did that awful
impersonation of an Indiana Jones soundtrack for the Tele-Movie.
>White Darkness- Basil Poledouris
>First Frontier- David Arnold
>Sanctuary- James Horner
>Lords Of The Storm- John Williams
>Shadow Of Weng Chiang- Jerry Goldsmith
>Dark Path- Chris Franke
>Face Of The Enemy- David Arnold again
>Mission Impractical- Michael Kamen
>
The only ones from this list I would pick are Christopher Franke, David
Arnold and (maybe) Michael Kamen, only because of the Highlander soundtrack,
and because he was once a member of Pink Floyd (there's a bit of trivia for
you).
I would completely ignore Goldsmith, Williams, and Horner since they all
sound the same to me, and I don't really think their music fits science
fiction. I've never heard of Basil Poledouris?
>Just to show how it would vary according to type of story.
>
>> Sean Connery as the Doctor,
>>
Might sell the movie, but I could never imagine him doing it in a zillion
years!
>
>> For sheer ability, Christopher Neame. For bankability - Tim Dalton?
>> (Although the way things usually go, we'd get Tom Cruise...)
>
Does Christopher Neame still act? I only see his name as a director
nowadays. He's already played another role in Doctor Who, but it has been
done before.
I like Timothy Dalton, but I wouldn't as Doctor Who. I dread to think of Tom
Cruise doing it. If he had his way, he'd change the concept completely, and
once again try to make people think he is tougher than Arnie & Bond (as in
the WORST movie ever made)
>If not as old as Connery, then how about Steve Martin (asbestos suit on,
>but trust me, I know what I'm doing), Richard O'Brien (who I'd rather did
>the TV series), Jonathan Pryce, or Charles Dance (who could also make a
>good Master, actually)
>
Steve Martin (AAARRRGGGHHH!!!), Richard O'Brien (don't know what he's like
as an actor?). I agree with the last 2, though I think Charles Dance would
work better as the Master.
>> Julianna Margulies and
>
>Carol Hathaway in ER
>
>> > Andre Braugher as the companions,
>
>Pembleton in Homicide
>
Never heard of any of them?
>> Terence Stamp as the Master,
>>
>> Agreed, but if unavailable, add a further hunk factor in Kevin Smith
>> from Xena (well, he's got the beard!, and he is damn good!)
>
Never heard of him either. Afraid there's a lot of TV shows that don't
interest me at all. They should use actors the general public recognise if
they are going to make a Big Screen Production.
>I still vote for Stamp, of course, but other choices: Richard E Grant,
>Charles Dance, or, there's absolutely no one else te y can get, Gary
>Oldman.
>
I would like to se Gary Oldman as the Doctor, actually (they could even put
in a pun where someone asks what his name is, and he replies "Doctor Smith")
William
William Duffy
It would be interesting to see a film with a story where the Doctor and the
Master swap bodies. I know it's been done recently with Face:Off, but it
would still make for an interesting story
William
William Duffy
>Oh dear. We seem to be going through another "let's blame everything on one
>person". JNT must be thanking God for Segal appearing on the Who scene.
>
>Segal worked miracles in impossible circumstances. His only mistake was
>thinking that a quality product could originate and survive in the USA. The
US
>networks want paper thin crap which is, at best, rubbish. Look at what Fox
did
>to the telemovie. They landed us with Roberts and tried to get rid of
McGann.
>They messed around with the format (kissing Doctors indeed!) and the end
result
>was a product that failed to grab or excite. I was left feeling very let
down.
>It's not enjoyable, it's not gripping and it's not fun. It's just 90
minutes of
>a rather mediocre product that has "Doctor Who" stuck on the front. Perhaps
if
>they had an experienced Doctor Who script writer things would have been
>writers are more important.
>
I agree with what you say above regarding Segal. As anyone familiar with the
workings of the media wil know, when you make a proposal for a TV production
to a network, after you get over the initial hurdle of that network
accepting it, you may have to bow down and lick their boots the way they
want them licked, before you can go ahead and make the thing. Paul McGann,
Geoffrey Sax & Matthew Jacobs are all professional Britishers in their
particular fields who have done far better. I beleive each of them would
have loved to have been able to do more with the TVM, but couldn't due to
how Fox wanted the finished product.
Because it was an attempt to aim for the US market was its downfall. America
is not used to TV series as unique as Doctor Who. They could never associate
with alien races that look like pepperpots, for instance, as we are aware in
previous attempts to make a TVM. Their SF has to be bland, ordinary, and
like most other US productions.
William
William Duffy
William Duffy
>>> Who's Golan-Globus (sic)?
>>
Aren't they the ones who made a lot of animated kids cartoons, or am I
thinking of someone else?
William