With the future of Doctor Who in question once again, I’ve been doing some thinking.

Sorry in advance. 

At the time of this writing, we have no idea where Who will go, and for how long. New streaming partner? The Beeb going it alone? For that matter, how long will the Beeb exist? Uncertainty piled upon uncertainty. Even if a new deal is struck by the time you read this, we don’t even know how long the new arrangement will last. 

So maybe it’s time to pivot.

To movies. 

These days, everything’s about the model. There are movies, streaming, cable, blah blah blah. 

Movies are hurting because of streaming. Why go to the theatre when you can wait a couple of months and see it whenever you want on streaming? Traditional broadcast TV is hurting because of streaming, because why get tied down to a specific broadcast time for Who — that’s constantly changing anyway — when, once again, you can watch any time on streaming?

It’s a legit problem. Ask Disney. 

So problem one would be, how to eliminate the “easy streaming” problem.

That one’s simple. If you make a movie: i) put it in cinemas; and ii) don’t put it on streaming for a year. People like their instant gratification. We’re lazy beasts. I’ll wait a couple of months to stream a film I didn’t bother with in the movie theatres. However, if I want to see it but I have to wait a year? I’ll go to the theatre, or worst case scenario, in six months, I’ll buy it on disc. They should delay those releases too.

That’s one possible solution. But it’s not my main point of discussion today. 

No, it’s making Doctor Who movies. 

“But what ho, Rick? That’s a bit of an impossibly sticky wicket, no?” Well, yeah, usually.

Say there’s a new Doctor. Let’s say, for the sake of sanity, that it’s the next one after the next officially credited one, hmm? Let’s just pick a number — the hypothetical Twentieth Doctor.

So, here’s a different showrunner (the crowd goes wild), the show’s looking good (wilder still), it’s the end of a season (four whole episodes!), and the Nineteenth regenerates into Twentieth. 

Now, under normal past circumstances, someone might float the idea of a movie featuring the current TV incarnation. Realistically, they’d have to put out a new season with the Twentieth Doctor, hoping for success. Let’s say they’re a huge hit. But then, instead of a second season, they’d have to spend the next year making the movie with the Twentieth, hope it’s a huge hit, then do a second season with this Doctor, because the regular series, the legend, the institution must go on. And since actors have had it drilled into their heads that you’ve got to leave Who after three years — you don’t have to! Honest! — then you’d have movie fans clamouring for another Who film, if you’re lucky, but the actor’s moved on, and the movie business is all about sequels, trilogies, etc. 

Reasonable, but doomed to failure. Inconsistencies, schedules, disruption of the show, an automatic, forced gap year, and a successful movie means a necessary sequel or seven these days. It’s just an unworkable model to float the movie with the series. Okay. Understandable. 

But now, more than ever before, the institution, the legend, is in trouble. Lazy, phone dwelling audiences, mixed with uneven, gimmick-laden, desperate creative decisions, have not been getting audiences back. And streaming’s just making everything extra unpredictable. 

So I’m saying: just go make Doctor Who movies. Do not tie them with a streaming service. Obviously make them good, but if the franchise dies going that route, well, it’s not thriving now, so what do they have to lose? 

What if… you go into a studio and pitch a movie franchise that never ends?

So, here’s the new, proposed ongoing scenario:

The final season ends with the Nineteenth regenerating into the Twentieth Doctor. Now, you shift to film. Obviously, casting is important, and you have the movies in mind when you get that new face. Then, you sign the Twentieth to a picture deal, with an option for a second and a third film. If the first film is successful, great. It’s a big budget thriller, and the lead might be there for three films, each three years apart, keeping them tied up for eight or nine years. If the lead wants to do more, great. If not, they can always regenerate. In fact, they can regenerate after one film, two films, three films, and on and on. But the Doctor can continue — just as movies, not a TV series. 

The American franchise that most closely models this approach would be Star Trek. Of course, they’re not doing that great right now either, but as always, it’s down to creative execution.

I’ve never been an advocate of turning Who into a movie franchise, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, but things have become dire.

Really, such a change for Who would result in more of a James Bond mould, albeit with a changing lead that is a lot easier to explain, and, of course, plays to the franchise’s strengths.

And the whole streaming issue must be resolved and corrected regarding movies. But I do think this is now the way to go. And I’ve even got a suggestion for who should lead the charge. Although he’s now quite busy, he is a big Who fan, he’s got a fantastic track record, and he doesn’t move forward on a project until it’s right. James Gunn. 

He’s done a wide variety of genres, be it PG-13, R, both TV and movies. He’d be perfect. He cast Karen Gillan in Guardians of the Galaxy and Peter Capaldi in Suicide Squad. He definitely is a legit Who fan.

But he’s busy with the DC Universe, so I’d like to think he could put the right person up for the job. 

And of course Russell T Davies would have to be jettisoned in no uncertain terms. Not only has he lost all touch with how to make “good” Who, retreating to endless spectacle and gimmickry, but he’s a television guy, not a filmmaker. So the BBC and Bad Wolf would have to get rid of him, and although they’re loathe to do it now, sadly, going to film would necessitate getting rid of him no matter what. 

But I do think it’s time. What I suggest, I do so in the name of the Doctor.