Steven Moffat promised his Twitter followers the other day: "To clarify: any Doctor Who movie would be made by the BBC team, star the current TV Doctor and certainly NOT be a Hollywood reboot." I think I think this is good news, but as I said, it could mean IF there is a movie, that the TV show will be off air for a couple of years while they film it. That would be not good. Anyway, as I'd all ready started looking at the previous movie attempts, I thought I'd share some thoughts anyway. Fandom always has room for one more critic. Let's start with the 1960's Dalek movies:
The Daleks
First criticism: The Doctor isn’t called ‘The Doctor,’ he is a Doctor whose surname happens to be Mr Who, which is blatently stupid and insane and clearly the show is called Doctor Who because the character is shrouded in mystery not because of....Look it’s just clearly stupid and makes the character sound like the punchline of a joke...Yes, I know the TV series did this on occasion, but it's idiotic.
The Doctor is also human and living in a quite horribly decorated house in England. I have no problem with this to be honest, the word Timelord hadn’t even been heard in the series in 1965 and even if it had, it doesn’t ruin the character to make him an eccentric human inventor who builds a time machine.
Actually, the opening shot shows his granddaughters reading science text books while he’s getting ‘most excited’ by a comic, which is more like the character we know and love today than William Hartnell’s portrayal was on the show. Ian is also a bit of a slapstick eejit in this version, rather than the hero who often saved the day on the TV show, so he is more like Mickey or Rory. Not that there’s anything wrong with the TV’s interpretation of the roles, in fact I like Hartnell’s grumpy Doctor and heroic-Ian just as much as silly-old-Cushing and daft-Ian, but it’s interesting to note how Who echoes these films in some ways more than the 1960s TV show. I do prefer though, that it is the Doctor who comes up with how to persuade the Thals they need to fight the Daleks, not Ian. The Doctor taking the chocolates clearly meant for Barbra and manoeuvring them so Ian sits on them is much more cheeky-Troughton than serious-Hartnell who was the Doctor in the TV original. Interesting to note too that they make Susan a much younger kid, again how many Moffat episodes put a kid at the heart of the action? (A: Lots). And watch Ian seeing inside TARDIS for the first time and then watch Rose seeing the inside of the TARDIS for the first time, Ian isn’t quite as hot but other-than-that spot-the-difference? (A: None) (Is that a little Weeping Angel in the garden? (A: No (But nice thought eh?)))
It seems odd to have a DVD in my collection that boasts that it’s “Glorious Technicolor” but for fans in the 60s, it must have been very exciting to see Doctor Who in colour. I guess the only 21st century equivalent for a film would be to do it in 3D. I hate 3D though, so I hope not. But it would be cool to see it in a new light. And here the multi-coloured Daleks look great. It makes you appreciate what they were trying with the Victory Of The Daleks look.
The Daleks and their control room look pretty good on the higher budget, but there is still something reassuringly crap and dated about it all (that dead Dalek hand is just naff, as are the many attempts when Daleks try to push buttons with their claws, they are just plain rubbish). They’ve clearly got a bigger budget but don’t let it mess too much with the story – David Yates take notice! I mock it’s daftness a bit, but also I love that this is a movie where Daleks are beaten by pushing them down a lift shaft or shoved into walls. It’s barmy, silly and fun, in other words it’sDoctor Who.
At 1 hour 20 minutes, it is also considerably better paced than the original 174minute TV version. It’s hard to see what they’ve edited out. The plot remains almost totally intact. They’ve just tightened up the script and got rid of the tiny little bits that matter less. These days with 45 minute or, at most, 90 minute episodes this won’t be an issue with the new film, but it does mean that if I had some time to kill before work or something, I’d probably choose this over the awesome TV story.
Different but equally valid and brilliant performances from the original make this a great film. The fact that so little changes but everything just looks that little bit better is what the new movie should take from this.
Dalek Invasion Of Earth
Most of what I said about the last film is true of this one too. Slightly better looking sets and spaceships, held up with ultra-realistic pieces of string. And Robomen have the least effective crash helmets ever – just saying. There are two totally new companions in this one proving that 1) Doctor Who movies can develop their own characters and 2) Bernard Cribbins is an absolute legend - Playing a great down-to-earth slightly silly companion, so similar but also so very different from Wilfred Mott. Again they make the male companion a bit of a comedy character, but again it’s funny so...meh. It’s hard to complain about things that are funny, unless you write letters to the Daily Mail.
Unfortunately, this one doesn't perform quite so well in some areas. Those epic shots of Dalek's in deserted London from the TV show are missing. Those are brilliantly atmospheric and chilling. So it's a shame. Also, because of Susan's age and time constraints, the whole David/Susan love story and that heartbreaking conclusion when Susan leaves is gone. In a way, the emotional subplot had to go to make a tighter film, but that subplot was one of the main reasons Dalek Invasion Of Earth is my favourite Hartnell-era story and I really miss it when I watch this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment