26 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

A while back a buddy and I were talking online, him a big Who fan was trying to "convince" me to get into the series, I wasnt interested back then, but recently I've picked up (and finished) the first season of the new season. I'm hooked, needless to say and now I'm curious about a bit of trivia my friend was talking about.

Apparently a script was written for a big budget Doctor Who movie and Pierce Brosnan was attached to star as the Doctor. I don't talk to this particular friend anymore and I can't really seem to find anything on this, so can any Who fans (or anyone in general) shed some more light on this?

[Jackanaples]

There was talk at various times over the years about the possibility of big screen DOCTOR WHO movie. This has involved a number of directors (Terry Gilliam, Steven Spielberg, etc.) and numerous actors. This is the first I've heard of Pierce Brosnan for the role though. The Doctor is expected meant to be somewhat eccentric and quirky looking, not movie star handsome.

For information on your query, you might try www.doctorwhoforum.com -it's the biggest online community of Whovians that I'm aware of. Someone there knows the answer.

Incidentally, if you liked the first season of the new DOCTOR WHO series, brace yourself. Not only does it get much better in each successive season, but starting next year Steven Moffat is taking over as show runner/head writer of the series. You may not know how cool that is now, but keep watching WHO and you're sure to find out.

[Royal Dalton]

This was back in about 1993.

Brosnan wasn't actually attached to star in it. But he was the actor they had in mind, apparently. Tom Baker was supposed to be in it, too.

The script was by Denny Martin Flinn (who wrote the story for Star Trek VI), and Leonard Nimoy was going to direct it.

It was close to being made. But the BBC wouldn't renew the production company's licence, so that was that.

Caroline Munro's hubby was one of the producers, incidentally.

[JimmyBond]

This was back in about 1993.

Brosnan wasn't actually attached to star in it. But he was the actor they had in mind, apparently. Tom Baker was supposed to be in it, too.

The script was by Denny Martin Flinn (who wrote the story for Star Trek VI), and Leonard Nimoy was going to direct it.

It was close to being made. But the BBC wouldn't renew the production company's licence, so that was that.

Caroline Munro's hubby was one of the producers, incidentally.

Got any more info on this? I seem to recall my friend mentioned he read the script. So I wonder if it's floating around out there.

[Bill]

Just to add to what was already commented on--there is a book called The Nth Doctor by Jean-Marc Lofficier which details many of the failed attempts to bring Doctor Who back to the screen which eventually culminated in the 1996 TV movie starring Paul McGann as the Doctor.

In the chapter on the Denny Martin Flinn' attempt, he definitely states that Pierce was the actor mentioned to take on the role, back in 1994 and obviously before GoldenEye.

It did not go anywhere, obviously, and it was not until the TV movie that we had the Doctor back, and it would be nine years after that that he would once again return to TV screens, where it would be unbelievably successful again.

Now that the current season is in the second half, and with only four additional tv movies in the works before it returns in 2010 for a full season again, there is some speculation that the current Doctor, David Tennant, will be leaving before the new full season. It will be sad to see him go, but any thoughts on Pierce taking over the role then?

I think it could be awesome--he just should play the role differently then Bond. The question is: can the BBC afford him?!

[Jackanaples]

They wouldn't choose him. He's too recognized as a certain other famous British institution. They'd have to spend all their time working against everyone's preconceived notions of Brosnan.

The hours and work schedule for the new WHO series is long and grueling. It's why actors like David Warner and Bill Nighy were not asked. Brosnan is getting up in years now too, and probably chooses his current projects in part according to how much time it will leave him to spend with family.

Finally, you said it yourself: He's too expensive. Easier to create a new star than use an established one.

I wouldn't be so sure about Tennant leaving soon. The reason why there's only some specials scheduled for next year is to free up his schedule. Why bother doing that if you're just going to leave anyway? Might as well leave at the end of this season with Davies then. With Moffat taking over the show's best years are definitely ahead of it. Tennant has to know that and I'd say he'll stick around to at least the end of season 5.

Edited by Jackanaples, 28 May 2008 - 07:10 AM.

[marktmurphy]

Yeah, I had a read of this synopsis in the Nth Doctor- it's not up to anything in the new TV series but would have been fun, and I can certainly see Pierce doing it; he even pretty much dressed as the Doctor for 80 Days Around the World.

As for big stars doing the TV series, well there was a quote from Hugh Grant a few months back saying that he'd turned it down when they offered it to him and that he was regretting that now. I can defintely see him doing it and I think he'd be rather good. There was even a little sample of a Grant Dr adventure in Dr Who Magazine a few years back written by Steven Moffat! It really sold it to me; he'd be great.
In fact I remember when Hugh Grant did the Comic Relief Dr Who thing there was a mystery as to who the big Hollywood Doctor would be, and I thought that it might actually be Pierce- he was in the country to promote TWINE and I thought there might have been a chance that they could have convinced him!

[Royal Dalton]

I can't really say I'm much of a fan of the new version. Paul Cornell's two-parter's the only one I've really liked so far. And that was adapted from a book.

Hopefully, Moffat will bring it back to something nearer to what I think Doctor Who should be like, though.

As for the film, when the producers lost the rights, they attempted to sue the BBC over it. At that time, Alan Rickman was mentioned as their choice for the role. So, I think Brosnan would have been out of the running by that point.

I don't know if the script for that one's turned up anywhere yet. Although, I've got an earlier script of theirs, by Johnny Byrne, which features the TARDIS turning into a Ford Cortina...

Of course, there've been a few attempts to get a Doctor Who film off the ground over the years. I suppose the most famous one was the 'Doctor Who Meets Scratchman' film, which would have starred Tom Baker, Vincent Price and Twiggy.

Baker co-wrote the screenplay with James Hill (who was going to direct it), and Ian Marter. One scary sequence was supposed to feature The Scratchman bringing a field of scarecrows to life. Three guesses where Cornell got the idea from for his story!

Anyway, for whatever reason, it didn't get made. Supposedly, the financiers pulled out because it seemed too small scale compared to the likes of Star Wars, but I don't know.

For years it was thought that no copies of the script even existed. I asked James Hill's partner, Hazel Peiser, if she had a copy many years ago, and drew a blank.

But, apparently, the Doctor Who Production Office retained a copy of the script, which is now available to view at the BFI Library.

[marktmurphy]

Indeed; the Dr Who mag did a big feature on it a year or two back. It was utterly bonkers.

Shame the Douglas Adams one didn't get any further ('Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen') but it became 'Life, the Universe and Everything' his HitchHikers book.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Just to add to what was already commented on--there is a book called The Nth Doctor by Jean-Marc Lofficier which details many of the failed attempts to bring Doctor Who back to the screen which eventually culminated in the 1996 TV movie starring Paul McGann as the Doctor.

In the chapter on the Denny Martin Flinn' attempt, he definitely states that Pierce was the actor mentioned to take on the role, back in 1994 and obviously before GoldenEye.

It did not go anywhere, obviously, and it was not until the TV movie that we had the Doctor back, and it would be nine years after that that he would once again return to TV screens, where it would be unbelievably successful again.

Now that the current season is in the second half, and with only four additional tv movies in the works before it returns in 2010 for a full season again, there is some speculation that the current Doctor, David Tennant, will be leaving before the new full season. It will be sad to see him go, but any thoughts on Pierce taking over the role then?

I think it could be awesome--he just should play the role differently then Bond. The question is: can the BBC afford him?!

I'm a fan of McGann's Doctor and the movie too, which is somewhat cheesy, especially with how the series turned out with Eccleston and later Tennant. I can't even begin to picture Pierce in the role. The Doctor is far too quirky a fellow.

Where did you near Tennant was thinking of leaving? last I'd heard he'd intended to stay on for quite some time more. I hope he does stay on because the Doc's lives are dwindling down. If you count Richard E. Grant's version, the Doc's in some serious trouble!

[Royal Dalton]

I wouldn't worry too much about the twelve regenerations business. Robert Holmes wrote that in for the sake of one story. It was never meant to be a bible for the character. I imagine they'll just ignore it when/if the times comes.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I wouldn't worry too much about the twelve regenerations business. Robert Holmes wrote that in for the sake of one story. It was never meant to be a bible for the character. I imagine they'll just ignore it when/if the times comes.

Thanks for the low down on the generations business. The Doctor has been doing so well, I was wondering how'd they'd get themselves out of that corner! I'd read Russell T. Davis absolutely hates REG so he probably never counted that life anyway.

[JimmyBond]

I have heard this too and remember the Paul McGann Dr Who which I thought was a travesty, really bad.

I'm watching it right now, it's not horrible, the skeleton of the series is there. It's just surrounded by a really mundane plot, and come on! The whole movie takes place on Earth? Pretty lame.

[marktmurphy]

I have heard this too and remember the Paul McGann Dr Who which I thought was a travesty, really bad.

I'm watching it right now, it's not horrible, the skeleton of the series is there. It's just surrounded by a really mundane plot, and come on! The whole movie takes place on Earth? Pretty lame.

Yeah the plot is a bit rubbihs, and the resolution is pretty terrible, but compared to what we nearly got with the other possible American verisons it's pretty good. We nearly got some awful reboot of the series with the Doctor being the Master's brother (the Master of course having invented the Daleks. Which are big spiders) and having to go in search for their father, who's called Ulyssess. And the TARDIS can talk.
At least the TV Movie we got fitted into the series properly and didn't take it off in some terrible cheesey direction. And Paul McGann was pretty fab.

[JimmyBond]

Considering all the complaints I hear about the movie, I'm surprised it actually stuck pretty well to established continuity (only seeing the new sereis though, I can't say if it clashes with anything in the past). The Doctor being half human and his ability to "read" people (as it appeared in the movie) are the only two bits I found at odds with what the Doctor should be.

Also Paul McGann is a great Doctor, too bad this is the last time we'll see him onscreen.

[Royal Dalton]

Also Paul McGann is a great Doctor, too bad this is the last time we'll see him onscreen.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Also Paul McGann is a great Doctor, too bad this is the last time we'll see him onscreen.

[Royal Dalton]

Spoiler tags, Master Blofeld. Spoiler tags.

[Professor Dent]

I have heard this too and remember the Paul McGann Dr Who which I thought was a travesty, really bad.

I'm watching it right now, it's not horrible, the skeleton of the series is there. It's just surrounded by a really mundane plot, and come on! The whole movie takes place on Earth? Pretty lame.

Yeah the plot is a bit rubbihs, and the resolution is pretty terrible, but compared to what we nearly got with the other possible American verisons it's pretty good. We nearly got some awful reboot of the series with the Doctor being the Master's brother (the Master of course having invented the Daleks. Which are big spiders) and having to go in search for their father, who's called Ulyssess. And the TARDIS can talk.
At least the TV Movie we got fitted into the series properly and didn't take it off in some terrible cheesey direction. And Paul McGann was pretty fab.

I thought the movie was the best case scenario for a remake at the time. It had the potential to be much worse. McGann was really good in the role.

If that spoiler tag info is accurate, that would be very cool.

[Bill]

Just to clarify:

I have only read rumors about Tennant thinking of leaving. In interviews, he is always asked the question about how long he is staying and he has pretty much stated that he is committed to the specials next year but it it is too early to speak past that.

It may be simply a negotiating ploy. By all accounts, he is very happy to be playing the role and is a true fan of the show. For the record, I think he is brilliant and is probably my second favorite Doctor after Tom Baker. I have no desire to see him go--he could play the role for 20 more years and it would be fine with me. I hope that when Steven Moffat takes over he keeps Tennant on, and there has been no indication that he will not do so!

The Pierce Brosnan idea is just a "what if" scenario, nothing more. I do not seriously think he would do it, but, if he is ever offered it, he may welcome the opportunity to put his stamp on the other most sought after male lead role in England.

[dinovelvet]

The Pierce Brosnan idea is just a "what if" scenario, nothing more. I do not seriously think he would do it, but, if he is ever offered it, he may welcome the opportunity to put his stamp on the other most sought after male lead role in England.

I dunno, I think Broz is a bit too old to be playing a boy wizard, isn't he?

[Odd Job]

Also Paul McGann is a great Doctor, too bad this is the last time we'll see him onscreen.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Also Paul McGann is a great Doctor, too bad this is the last time we'll see him onscreen.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I think Timothy Dalton is more suited for Dr. Who. They wouldn't need to glam him up, and I could see him playing it more like the cantankerous William Hartnell, the original Dr. Who.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 30 May 2008 - 01:47 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Link doesn't work.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Spoiler tags, Master Blofeld. Spoiler tags.

Well, crud...

[Gabriel]

The Jewels of Time would have been a stonkingly good Doctor Who movie. It was intended to be an epic journey across time and space that would have encompassed multiple Doctors via flashbacks, an appearance by Tom Baker, K9, The Master. Remember it was meant to be for the cinema, not a more intimate TV show.

Denny Martin Flynn had created a rough draft for the film that would have undergone hefty revision before it was made. The finance was supposed to be coming from Europe, so when Spielberg's company made their approach in the 1990s, the BBC got greedy at the thought of Hollywood and dumped the movie team alleging a breach of contract, which led to a legal action from the film team.

One thing that intrigues me with nu-Who (a show that can be very good at times, but is mostly dreadful) is whether the universe Rose Tyler was trapped in has a Gallifrey and whether The Doctor exists there. And, yes, that would be a very convenient way to bring in Paul McGann's Doctor, reworked for the new show. Hell, they could even write out David Tennant's Doctor and make McGann the new/old Doctor!!