Dear Hollywood, BBC Worldwide, David Yates , et al.,

bandwagoners



Yates made clear that his movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but would take a completely fresh approach to the material.



"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.



We don't want to tell you how to do your jobs (well, actually, as critics we do sometimes do that, but for the sake of this letter we're writing you merely as fans), but we're a little worried.Look, we love that you've seen the potential for Doctor Who on the big screen. We know that as fans we can sometimes seem a little possessive about our passions and not all that welcoming ofer, newcomers to our favorite franchises, but the truth is that deep down, we love it when other people discover the greatness of the things we enjoy. It allows us to feel superior for having known about them all along. There's nothing more satisfying than hearing, "You were right. This is good!" So when we read that the long-rumored Doctor Who movie was actually moving forward, and under the supervision of Harry Potter director David Yates, we were thrilled. At first.And then we noticed this passage in the original Variety article:Frankly, we're not really sure how to take that. It could mean so many things, a lot of them troubling. We realize that our grandest fan wishes will probably never be granted on the big screen (The Time War, a modern multi-Doctor story) but if Yates is estimating correctly that the project will take two to three years to complete, we're looking at a 2013 release. Does that date mean anything to you? It should; it's the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who , and current showrunner Steven Moffat has promised us big things for that year. Is it really the best time to do a standalone movie in the middle of all that?There are so, so many ways to get this wrong, Hollywood. We've known you for too long, and we know your weaknesses. But we're going to do you a big favor here. There will be pitfalls that we can't anticipate, of course, but here are some obvious temptations we urge you to resist in the name of all that's good in time and space. Embrace them at your own peril, for there's nothing like a pissed-off fan base to sink a movie's chances of success.

Loading

We're just going to come right out and say it: It would be a drastic miscalculation to diverge too far from the series' continuity. Doctor Who has built up a substantial, devoted fan base as a television show, and neglecting those roots entirely is not just an insult to the fans, but a missed opportunity to build on 48 years of compelling storytelling. We know that the budgetary requirements of a major production require you to aim for a more mainstream audience, but you're going to need us at the box office too. And let's face it, how mainstream can you really make the premise of a super-intelligent alien who travels through space and time in a blue police box thwarting the evil plans of other aliens? We've suffered through several reboots already, not all of them successful. Asking us to accept another, unrelated incarnation when there's still a perfectly good television series going on is a bridge too far for some of us. Besides, with a science-fiction series that so nimbly incorporates parallel universes, alternate dimensions, intersecting timelines and regenerations, there's no reason why this big-screen adventure couldn't fit into the storyline somewhere.On the other hand, there's something to be said for being able to write off the events of the film as a self-contained entity with no bearing on the series at all. For one thing, if we don't like it, we can just pretend it didn't happen. Do you remember the two previous big screen outings, Doctor Who and the Daleks (1965) and Daleks: Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (1966), both starring Peter Cushing? Probably not, and we'd prefer to forget them as well. You know what we do remember? The first X-Files movie. And we still can't forgive you for how it messed up the show, both before and after it was released. If we really want to see a supersized episode on the big screen, we can always just throw any of the Tenth Doctor's last few adventures into our Blu-ray player and enjoy them on our home theater systems.You, Hollywood, may look at George Lucas and see only dollar signs, but we just see a rich control freak who has become disconnected to his creations and his fans. It may seem like the thing to do when you have such a wide canvas is to load it up with a visual extravaganza, but don't make the mistake of thinking that more advanced technology is a replacement for human emotion, complex characters and well-written stories. We Doctor Who fans are used to engaging with the show on an intellectual and emotional level while looking past past wobbly sets, ropey creature suits, silly special effects and hastily thrown together CGI. Shiny, impressive spaceships and perfectly rendered digital aliens aren't going to impress us much. Neither will 3D, although that's probably a foregone conclusion since you don't seem to be getting over that fad anytime soon.As talk show host Craig Ferguson eloquently reminded us, Doctor Who is "all about the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism." We all know that Americans love their guns, especially in the movies, but it's just not the Doctor's style. He's not a pacifist by any means – he did destroy two entire races to bring about the end of the Time War, after all. He can be cold and calculating, but he fights his enemies with brain power, not firepower. For that matter, he's a bonus bit of advice. Don't dumb it down for a mainstream audience. They're not allergic to big, complicated ideas. Really. And we don't care if you hire non-British writers, as long as they understand that Doctor Who is a national institution and unless you want to start an international incident, they'd do well to remember that.We happen to like this Matt Smith fellow, but we're going to assume that one of the implications of a clean break means recasting the lead role (and the companions too). And you're just shallow enough to pursue stars with marquee value rather than competent, versatile actors who can actually play the part well, aren't you? Sure, it's fun to play the casting game. We ourselves have been throwing around names since the news broke (and, admittedly, long before that). You may have seen us suggest everyone from Johnny Depp to Michael Fassbender to Tom Hiddleston to Hugh Laurie to Ryan Gosling. Because it's David Yates, we've also seriously considered the possibility of Gary Oldman or an unconventional choice like Idris Elba. But there's something you should know about Doctor Who fans when it comes to casting. We act like we're all open-minded, but we actually hate change. Whoever you pick, we're not going to like him (or her – why not give a woman Doctor a chance?) initially. That's just our knee-jerk reaction. But if you choose wisely and strike the right balance between talent and name recognition, we'll eventually warm up when we see the new Doctor in action. And then we won't be able to see anyone else in the role. And then you'll probably recast again.If you've made it this far, thanks for listening. We hope you'll consider the points above when developing this project that's so near and dear to our hearts. But it's not just us you've got to worry about. To quote from the series itself, "You know the stories about the Doctor? The things that man has done? God help us if you've made him angry!"Love,IGN (on behalf of The Worldwide Community of Doctor Who Fans)