h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Bring him back, I say!

Let H2G2 start the noise!

How should it be brought back? Americanized or english? In America the eigth doctor wasnt a big hit although I think it did well over here. Should we try for shit-hot special effects or go for the low budget of the good ole days? Or should we just remember the doctor with fond memories? Questions, Questions???

If any more series are made, surely it's about time we had a female Doctor Who. Not too good looking though in case the little boys behind the sofa start doing more than just hiding from the Daleks.

There were rumblings, at one time, that David Hasselhof was going to be cast as The Doctor in a movie version.

JTG

That US made effort was just awful. The stupid thing was, in essence it was a fairly standard Doctor Who plot (actually cobbled together from old episodes!) and Paul McGann was a credible doctor. Then they spoilt it all by throwing in that hideous woman (sorry 'feisty 90s woman'), Eric Roberts (the Master- He was always a English pantomime villain surely?) and a typically american overdose of special effects and vomit inducing sentimentality. Don't bring it back now, it's been too long.

I missed that one completely. When was it released? Was it a made for television thing?

JTG

Be glad. After so many years of waiting it was a disappointment. If they are going to bring it back, it can't be Americanised - the doctor was a great fan of England and Lethbridge-Stewart and co just wouldn't work over the pond.

There are rumors of another Who movie currently in the works. There are more rumors (just rumors, mind you) that Patrick Stewart was approached to play the part of the Doctor.

i jsut want another series
don't want a movie
a series!!!

want the doctor! the real doctor - the doctor that had you on the edge of your seat at the end of an episode so you had to come back next week

hmmmm, I don't think Tom Baker would do it (for my general age group he will always be the best Dr.).
BCNU - Crescent

Maybe they could do a one off for Children in Need night or something. Properly, like the old days. Maybe in black and white!!

The Doctors I remember with greatest fondness are Jon Pertwee (R.I.P.) and Tom Baker. Peter Davidson wasn't bad, but it was downhill from there.

One problem with the film version of Dr Who was the use of a 'name' as the Doctor. All the previous Doctors were either unknown or only minor celebrities before their stint (O.K., so Peter Davidson had done Tristan in 'All Creatures Great and Small', but I can't think of anything else he'd done). Paul McGann was too well known, although I have to admit he looked the part. Eric Roberts was also wrong as the Master, although in his case the Master's essence had taken over his body, rather than him being a regeneration of the Master. The REAL Master should have a moustache and goatee beard and look generally devilish. The best Master was Roger Delgado (R.I.P.), but Antony Ainsley (I think) wasn't bad.

As for a new series, I don't know whether modern audiences would go for the low-tech effects and monsters I remember from my childhood. We expected a lot less in those pre-Star Wars days. The BBC couldn't afford the effects that people seem to want, and I wouldn't trust any one else to do Dr Who properly. Look at the hash they made of the film! Also, the assistant would be a problem. I'm not sure I'd want to see a return to the more-or-less helpless female assistants he used to have (even the ones with a science background seemed helpless most of the time). But I'm not sure how well an independent-minded, self-reliant, intelligent woman would fit in.

That is a good question! Of course, all be told, there will be many opinions. My own humble opinion stands from what I have always felt. Dr. Who is such a good premise that it deserves top notch talent. ( American, British... whatever ) I don't think any new incarnation should be persued until a proper job is assured. Have a excellent writer, director and producer who all appreciate the history and cult like status that Dr. Who has enjoyed for years and through their capable hands they could elevate Dr. Who to a greater glory. Hasselhoff? Ughhh... talk about a recipe for disaster! Director, Tim Burton anyone?

Hmmmm, the BBC could of afforded it, the budget for one full story line of Dr. Who was less than for one episode of Red Dwarf, the BBC could do something fairly good with a Red Dwarf budget for Who. Maybe put a few long story arcs into the background (sorry B5 influence kicking in) of the main stories, and away you go. Find a decent Dr., move back to the more adult audience (in the last series the shows were at some stupid time like 17:00 - the end of cBBC, dire). But who for the Dr. ? That is the question.......
BCNU - Crescent

I disagree with the fact that a good sfx Dr. WHo Couldn't be done with a fairly low budget. With new Computer Graphics previously hideously expensive scenes can be done at quite a low cost(the latest series of Red Dwarf is a good example, and I would far rather watch Dr. Who than that). However the point is being missed, Dr.Who isn't a Star Wars idea where you have to have car chases and space fights every two minutes, the Dr. is an intellectual hero not a physical one who outwits his opponents, hence no need for OTT sfx. As for a Dr., I personally think Paul McGann was great, and I haven't seen him in anything since so he can't be that established a name. And I also heard Stephen Fry was a possibility which I think is a great idea, he is incredibly intelligent as the Dr. should be, and would bring genuine comic genius to the role, while still being a fantastic actor(Wilde anyone?), and he certainly wouldn't be jumping into bed with is female assistants every five minutes......

Maybe I was misunderstood. I agree with most of what you say, but I think the time of low budget has passed for Dr. Who. The franchise is stagnating under the premise. The loyal followers are dwindling and an infusion of new blood is needed or Dr. Who will go out with a wimper. Sad as it is to say, to get a new audience, you have to supply a reason for them to show up. In this day and age where Star Wars, episode one doesn't really impress, how can you expect a low budget version of Dr. Who to attract anyone but the dwindling loyal hordes. Now you can't equate high-budget with, a showcase for special effects. It is possible to marry an intelligent screen-play with out-standing special effects, without continually insulting your audience, but providing excellent entertainment- Contact anyone? I think it would be a mistake to make another low budget effort because, no matter how well acted, written or directed, people will fixate on the budget and write it off as another half hearted attempt. I don't see the upside.

Stephen Fry as the Dr. Who! I love it! Seeing him on Blackadder and Who's Line... made me have fleeting thoughts as him in the good doctor role. Tim Burton directs, Stephen Fry stars, ??? writes and ??? produces. Any suggestions?

If the BBC can afford to make bugs and crime traveler Doctor Who can't be too much more expensive. It'd probably make enough in video and overseas sales anyway. Personally I think Eddie Izzard or Alan Davies would be perfect doctors.

Alan Davies- No. He IS Jonathon Creek now, and...
"...So he was found dead, murdered APPARENTLY by a dalek (pause. enigmatic glance) on the first floor of a building without a lift. Now, I've been trying to squeeze the mechanics of it out of my head..."
Eddie Izzard, though... he would be good. And it would be something he could do if he gets too rich to be properly funny, or if he says 'jam' one time too many. He'd be great!
And about this low budget thing:
Anyone heard of the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT at all? It makes you think doesn't it? They had an idea.
If you can make a film that successful and good with just a few thousand dollars and a bunch of americans shouting 'f**k' in a forest, what can't you do?

As an aside, BWP was a pile of crap made successful by excellent marketing and months of media manipulation - the whole "myth" was bandied about until a large chunk of those who saw it did so because they thought it actually was based on a true story, and the rest were reliant on critics without the balls to form their own opinions in the face of huge acclaim (which itself was down to the "My God - we can make huge profits off a cheap movie!" shudder that Hollywood felt).

Back to the Doctor - if it does come back, it can only (and because it's audience is now grown-up, should only) be as a vehicle for well-written, adult sci-fi drama. A nice extensive plot with gravitas (just like B5 or the ever-changing political map within the Trek universe - and the ramifications thereof) and sophistication is what is currently found wanting on our screens - and the good Dr can bring that.

The bulk of his travels were never FX dependent - they couldn't be. Stories with twists and turns and well-written cliff-hangers were the order of the day. To bring all that to a hungry and mature audience, with high quality and inexpensive effects available where needed, is a worthwhile project that, as mentioned above, only needs a writer and director with a clear vision of what they're trying to achieve.

The best sci-fi movies I've seen recently have been the most thought-provoking, more reliant on a well-paced script and key moments than Hollywood big budgets - eg Contact. Although the X-Files is clearly struggling to maintain momentum (hence Carter's move to begin clearing up a few questions), this approach is what Dr Who was all about - strong (in places) stories, well-developed relationships between the main characters, and an underlying plot with possibly earth-shattering implications. It can be done!

He is back!!!!! He's in Canada. i've seen Him, and He's glorious. He is with me now.@