Forum:David Yates movie

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → David Yates movie

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

I wanted to get a second opinion first, but it seems to me we should have a page for the new feature film.

I know that there are not many details yet, but if I remember correctly, unlike individual episodes only having pages after their first transmission, the pages for each new series of Doctor Who/Torchwood/SJA were added as soon as the new series was confirmed, with new details added as they were released. I believe the new film should be treated in this way, (novels/audio adventure pages are also added before their commerical release) and it is fair to say that this new film has indeed been confirmed (it hasn't been denied, and even Moffat is discussing it in terms of what 'will' happen, not 'if'). Geek Mythology ☎ 11:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the page title, structure etc, I would propose a similar model to http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Untitled_Star_Trek_sequel Geek Mythology ☎ 11:27, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

What new film?

The only reporting I've seen is David Yates shooting his mouth off and Moff and the BBC being vague about it.

There appears to be overwhelmingly more speculation than any facts. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:21, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

There definitely is a film in development, but lots of movies go into development and never come out. (See Development hell.) I agree that there isn't really enough solid material to justify a page yet. At best the article would be a record of press mentions, almost none of which will have any real bearing on the film if and when it actually appears.

My leaning is to that we shouldn't create a page until the film project is actually greenlit and enters pre-production proper. But then again, it's possible that we'll get more solid information as the development process proceeds (e.g. a writer being hired, further discussions of how it will fit with the TV series, etc.). What do others think? —Josiah Rowe ☎ 02:37, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

My preference would be to wait for a press release from the BBC, and also not rely on something on like an article in DWM.

During the Wilderness years there were several films in development that cropped up in DWM that came to nothing.

Any information between now and an official statement from the BBC I think can be added to the Doctor Who article under the feature films heading. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:06, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll leave it for now. Geek Mythology ☎ 09:17, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, an article on this Yates movie would be in violation of our spoiler policy, which makes no provisions whatsoever for feature films. Therefore, an article on, say, Doctor Who (2014), or whatever, is not exempt from the policy, which requires a story to actually be released before an article can be put up.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 13:48: Tue 24 Jul 2012 

As much as the spoiler policy has no provisions for feature films, this is due to it not having been an issue before. If there is an official announcement from the BBC, then surely provisions should have to be made, rather than it just ignored.

I am assuming that it would be in the same style as a series page, rather than that of a TV episode, in that production info (cast, crew, etc) would be added, but not any regarding story until it's actual release (such as the Star Trek example I mentioned earlier, a long page on which the only plot info is: "At the 2011 Los Angeles Times Hero Complex Film Festival, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof confirmed the film would deal with the "ripple effect" of Vulcan's destruction. They said between films the crew would've had a few more adventures, but they are still not fully familiar with each other. They added that the mirror universe would not be involved"

This is also similar to novel, and audio adventures, which have quote from back covers, cast lists etc, but again. Surely just ommiting story info would not mean ommiting a whole page?Geek Mythology ☎ 14:05, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, films were deliberately left undiscussed at tardis:spoiler policy precisely because there's no reason to exempt them. Films are a single story, and therefore more akin to episodes, not series. Moreover, it's not like the Yates concept is the first Doctor Who movie idea to ever be floated to the public. And we know how all those have turned out. At this point, there's just as much chance that an article about the "Yates thing" will end up being about an unproduced concept as an actual, released story. I'd therefore take strong exception to your underlying assumptions. We don't have pages for future episodes, so there's no reason to have pages for future films.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 22:42: Tue 24 Jul 2012 

Ok, I get that there shouldn't be a page at the moment (possibly ever), but I have to admit I still don't understand why a film page (if it gets made) would have to wait until it's actually released. Every single story, be it novel, audio, or television episode is given space for production info (cast, crew, authors, book cover blurbs etc) prior to it's release, it just happens that for TV, this is on the series page, not episodes.

Therefore, I still do not see why, in principle, after any film project has been officially announced and moves from pre-production to production (ie, actually being filmed), there would be no placeto do the same.Geek Mythology ☎ 22:52, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't "just happen" that we allow series pages to have information about the upcoming series. It was actually determined that this compromise be allowed so that people who were anxious to include all the late-breaking rumors had a place to play. And I don't say "play" pejoratively. I mean that the series pages, because they admit so much rumor and speculation, are constantly changing. They're very much sand castles, rearranged every time the tide roles in. By allowing spoilers only on series pages, users who want to avoid spoilers can do so easily by simply not going to the series page.

See, this isn't some arbitrary rule. It's an effort at editor and reader retention, because we had a spell during series 5 where we lost people due to the fact that the spoilers were absolutely uncontrolled. This policy is thus a balanced compromise that allows people one page and one page only on which they may collect, mold and refactor the latest rumors to their hearts' content.

There's little need for such a page about anything else. There certainly shouldn't be pages for individual stories prior to their release. If you're finding such pages, you should report it to an admin. For instance, I know that some people got really enthusiastic with the Tom Baker Big Finish material prior to its release, but these were swiftly "administratively blanked" with {{created too soon}}, which covered up the offending material and placed it into Category:Pages that violate spoiler policy. Equally, there was a determined effort to keep Assimilation² from being available for editing prior to its actual drop date, as well as Worlds in Time, the various bits of Doctor Who: The Adventure Games and Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock. It may be that we have occasionally let a few things slip by, but it's a truism of wiki administration that the presence of a policy violation doesn't invalidate the policy itself. We're a relatively small admin staff tying to police a relatively large and active editing population covering a fairly vast fictional franchise. Some things are going to slip through the cracks.

I'd also dispute your notion that we need to have a page up before a story is released in order to collect the production information. As the person who's entered the production information for most episodes of recent Doctor Who and Torchwood, I can tell you that it's entirely possible to have the entire cast and crew list up within an hour, or at most a day, of first broadcast. And it's better to go off the actual credits seen on screen rather than those reported to the press or, worse, to IMDb. How can anyone actually know the full credits, anyway, until the episode has been broadcast, the book published, or the audio released?

As Tangerineduel likes to say, we're not a news service. It's not our job to be there first. It's our job to be there accurately.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 01:29: Wed 25 Jul 2012 

Thanks for your replies, although I don't recall saying there was any "need" to have this page. After it was noted there wasn't enough actual evidence, I understood why the Yates film should not have a page, but after your response "just to be clear, an article on this Yates movie would be in violation of our spoiler policy, which makes no provisions whatsoever for feature films", I was not trying to dispute or change this, but merely find out why this was so. As it would be a single story, I see why a film itself would be more akin to an episode, but please allow me to better explain where I was coming from in terms to wikia pages.

I had seen several pages made prior to release over the time I have been on this wikia, (particularly 8th Doctor audios) and unaware that this was against the Tardis wikia policy, I presumed that was the norm. I have since checked today, and have not found any.

I am also aware of story spoilers getting out of hand, and never suggested that just because a page existed, it would therefore automatically include them. Like a series page, it thought it would contain only production info. As you say, a "compromise", and would be in a similar vein to the pages I remember seeing previously; despite being created prior to their release, they never contained more than a cover photo, cast list and publishers description etc. The closest one came to a story spoiler was the To The Death publisher summary of "To defeat the Daleks, it can only be a struggle… to the death", which would have been seen by anyone reading the Big Finish website, or the CD case itself.

As a user of other wikias, Star Trek (alpha and beta), Buffy etc, I often still see, pages created prior to release (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Brinkmanship is another example alongside Star Trek XII I cited earlier on this thread), once a story had been officially anounced by the studio/publisher. Although I am aware that different wikis have different policies, I guess I have now got used to seeing pre-release pages, and take them for granted.

In terms of not being a news service, I agree we shouldn't race to report news, but as you mentioned as part of the "compromise", like the current series 7 page, this wikia will collect production news (again with a clear distinction between production and story info) in one place.

I also agree that imdb and such sites cannot be verified and so should not be used, and all info added should be backed up with a reference from a reputable source. One reason I assumed a film page would be similar to a series page is, like you said, they contain all the info in one place, with a spoiler warning for those who wish to avoid them. Please note that the Star Trek pages also contain a warning that the pages are for stories that have not been released yet.

Given the pre-release pages I had seen on this, and other wikis, as well as the production info that is given for TV series', I hope you can understood why, however rightly or wrongly, I came to my conclusions, and was confused as to why a film page would not be created in a similar manner. Apologies for my mistake, and thanks again for your explanations. Geek Mythology ☎ 12:32, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I completely understand your point of view, as well as your assumptions. We do things differently here than MemAlpha, MemBeta, Wookiee, and just about any Wikia wiki I've yet encountered.

This is, I believe, a direct result of a fundamental difference in DW fandom than other fandoms. The reason that River's "spoilers" schtick works is because Steven Moffat has correctly observed that DW fandom works a bit differently than others. We have an active "civil war" between people who gleefully want to be spoiled, and those who vigorously avoid even announcements about writers. Meanwhile, there are also a lot of others who have a "sliding scale of spoilers" — where maybe the cast list isn't such a big deal, but plot details are.

I'm personally in the middle, but if I'm passionate about anything regarding spoilers, it's that the individual should have the right to choose their own path. To the extent allowable by the software which underpins the site, we should never be the instrument of involuntary spoiling. If a person gets spoiled about an upcoming story on this site, it must be because they've chosen to go to a page where spoilers allowed. And I think this includes even the basic production information you've mentioned. There are some fans who like to be spoiled about the director. I know that one thing I've enjoyed since Moffat took over is trying to guess the director of photography, solely based on the lighting qualities of the episode. I now actually get pissed if I know that information ahead of time, because it's always been the process of making Doctor Who which has interested me more consistently than the narratives. I also know of people who — in the wake of their disastrous prejudgement of Catherine Tate — don't want to know the guest stars at all, so that they can encounter the character slightly before they recognize the actor.

Our policy therefore allows the first generation of watchers/listeners/readers to have at least a decent chance to experience a story before being spoiled. This is vital, as there are a number of editors who wouldn't help us out if they knew that they might randomly encounter spoilers.

Again, though, you shouldn't feel badly at all for having different underlying assumptions, because most other websites — and this one, prior to 2010 — do work according to the principles you've outlaid.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 15:33: Wed 25 Jul 2012 

As things stand now it makes sense to keep any info on the film's development at Doctor Who#Feature films, but we should all keep an eye on that section to make sure that it doesn't get too cluttered up with every passing press mention. (In fact, I'm not sure that we really need Moffat emphasizing that it won't be a reboot twice, as we currently do.)

And if things start happening on the film, and the section starts to get unwieldy, we may want to revisit this question, including the possibility of revising the spoiler policy to allow a film article, just as Geek Mythology suggests. We shouldn't be so tied to our rules that we can't adjust them to changing circumstances, after all. —Josiah Rowe ☎ 01:46, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with that, Josiah. Just to clarify, my remarks to this thread have been in the vein of explaining the policy now and the current consensus which underpins that policy.

After the film gets truly announced — that is, we have a full-throated press junket announcing the beginning of principal photography — there is certainly no reason we couldn't have a specific debate to allow an exception to spoiler policy.

But our rules as they currently exist — and for good reason — do not allow for the creation of an article about a single story prior to its release.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 17:06: Sat 28 Jul 2012