Let's BREAK IT DOWN!
"We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right," he said. "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."
Uh huh. Okay. This seems fair, as it can be quite frustrating to have films that would have been great as tv episodes but are overstretched to meet the standard feature time. (Although you could just make a SHORT film.) I am a bit leery of the implication that DW doesn't translate well to the big screen in general but okay.
"Doctor Who" follows the adventures across space and time of a super-intelligent alien in human form, who battles a variety of cosmic bad guys aided by plucky human companions.
The Doctor doesn't go looking for a fight (unless you're talking about Ten in his Time Lord Victorious mode). He just won't run away from one. There's a difference.
"The notion of the time-travelling Time Lord is such a strong one, because you can express story and drama in any dimension or time," Yates said.
Yes! I agree! As long as you keep what made the character so beloved in the first place.
"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.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Does this mean you're going to completely ignore what RTD and Moffat have done? I'm going to state the obvious and say that would be a BAD IDEA. Doctor Who has always been a show that's played fast and loose with its own continuity... but that is not the same as completely abandoning it. Unless Yates means something like Gallifrey Academy: First Class. I think I'm not alone in saying I would certainly be willing to give THAT idea some room (especially if you got Fassbender to play the Master and McAvoy to play the Doctor, haha), but I don't see the point of rebooting the TV series while it's STILL ON AIR and it's still doing the business when it comes to ratings/DVD sales/merchandise etc.
They already tried that with the DW movie back in the 90s. And the only good thing to come out of that movie was Paul McGann (and Sexy in her steampunk phase). There are so many things that could go wrong with this movie that I actually feel a bit sick contemplating the prospect.
"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," he explained.
Honestly, this is the part which really pissed me off. No, Yates, he did NOT capture it 'perfectly'. Making Ron say 'bloody' every other sentence and sticking 'mental' in there a couple of times does NOT mean he captured the British sensibility. You want proof? Harry Potter hugging people in the movies left, right and centre when Harry Potter in the books finds it hard to show any kind of spontaneous physical affection AT ALL! (It's not that he doesn't care about people; he just wasn't hugged after his parents died. AT THE AGE OF ONE. Excuse me while I have a little cry.)
I do like Yates as a director, but I'm worried about who's going to write the script. I think there are some good American writers out there. But they would have to understand and love the show. They would need to understand, in the words of Craig Ferguson, that this show is about the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism. Look at those last four words and then think of Hollywood. Do you think anyone in that town could understand that concept?