Doctor Who Vs Star Trek – The Answer!
Well, if that title got you reading, you probably already have an opinion on the winner. I know I’m inviting a ton of backslaps as well as twice as much hate mail for suggesting this.
But, as Series Four of Doctor Who premieres in the UK tonight, I thought it only right to devote today’s post to…
The Final Undisputable Reason Why Doctor Who is Better Than Star Trek
Writers Watch Doctor Who - Computer Programmers Watch Star Trek
Resorting to wild generalisations in the hope of generating a reaction? Moi? Well, let’s look at the evidence.
There are a number of writers that go giddy for the good Doctor. Neil Gaiman recently talked about his excitement at having dinner with Who writer Steven Moffatt. Stephen Fry was almost writing for the show, such is his enthusiasm, until his work schedule prevented it. And let’s not forget that some of the most highly awarded television writers in the UK flocked to the new series when it was relaunched. (Russell T Davies and the aforementioned Steven Moffatt to name but two).
If I trawl the net looking for famous Star Trek fans, you come up with a list of people like Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates. I have yet to find a single writer who claims to be a fan of Star Trek. What I did find was quite a few Star Trek forums desperately trying to put together lists of famous Trekkies as ammunition should they ever be criticised. Most of these lists were people they ‘suspect’ as Trekkies but were more wishful thinking than anything else. (The Dalai Lhama – I ask you! I laughed too at the cheek of it. I mean, can you see him getting excited and putting on his Starfleet pin when a new episode comes on?)
So the people who value strong storylines and creative ideas watch Doctor Who and those that get excited about the physics of black holes watch Star Trek. I think my point is made and made well. But I can push it still further.
The Ellison / Rodenberry Feud
The popular science fiction writer Harlan Ellison admitted his deep rooted affection for Doctor Who when he championed the America syndication of the show back in the 1970s. He went so far as to write the foreword for the US Pinnacle reprints of the Target Doctor Who novels. Yes, this is the one and the same Harlan Ellison who wrote the episode most often claimed to be the best Star Trek script ever, ‘The City on the Edge of Forever’, and is therefore revered by Star Trek fans. But Harlan was very vocal about his distaste for Roddenberry’s treatment of his script. This dispute cuts to the heart of the difference between the two shows.
One of the script changes Ellison objected to most strongly was the removal of a subplot involving drug dealing on board the Enterprise. The Star Trek crew were always presented as paragons of virtue, with even their personality flaws having a noble quality to them. Cut to Doctor Who. Drug dealing on a spaceship? In ‘Nightmare on Eden’, the ships crew are actively involved in the smuggling of a futuristic form of heroin.
Utopia Vs Dystopia
The idealistic form of writing championed by Roddenbery has no place for the seedier side of life. The Star Trek universe is a near utopia. World peace is a reality, even if there are a few alien races challenging Earth’s right to go wherever they want to boldy go! (And about that! Let’s face it, the aliens bear a distinct likeness to America’s greatest enemies from their most recent wars at that time. The Klingons are quite obviously the Vietnamese whilst the Romulans may as well come from Japan with those haircuts and facial features. I think that’s called battering your audience with a subtext.) Star Trek characters are almost universally supermen of morals and intelligence. They represent everything that is best about us and… blah, blah, blah until I’m sick.
The future as presented in Doctor Who is almost a dystopic vision of corruption, poverty, Bladerunner-esque hopelessness, dirt and grime. People are flawed and not in a charming way. People make mistakes. People die even. I’m willing to bet that if you put the death tolls of Doctor Who and Star Trek side by side, you’d soon have a different idea about which was the kids show and which presented a less sugar-coated vision of the world.
.To finish off, the last word has to go to Harlan Ellison.
“Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up! “
From his introduction to the Pinnacle series of Doctor Who books
I'll be the one standing behind Harlan with the bat.
If you enjoyed this post or found it informative, please share with your favourite online community.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry:
Doctor Who Vs Star Trek – The Answer!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jonathancrossfield.com/cgi/mt/mt-tb.cgi/33
13 Comments
Please leave a comment
CopyWrite Updates
Click the button to get CopyWrite delivered to your RSS reader.
And then there's the fact that David Tennant is infinitely yummier to look at than Bill Shatner ever was.
Ok, this is a tough call. I grew up on Star Trek and still have an affection for it. But I also love the modern Dr Who. Great idea for a post. I agree with Kate though, all the Dr Whos are better looking than William Shatner.
Well, Ron Moore is a writer with a passing interest in Star Trek. Jane Espenson, as well. But in general, your point is well taken.
I just grabbed my copy of the White Wolf printing of "City on the Edge of Forever" to see if I could find one kind word about Roddenberry from HE's pen...it's been quite a while since I'd read that foreward and I thought I might have forgotten some passing, nice comment. Nope. Appropriately, correctly venomous.
British shows in general are better written than their American counterparts. A lot of TV shows from England are adapted for American viewing what does that say about the US TV production's imagination and creativity?
SciFiDrive, perhaps you should view the entirety of British television before you make such a blanket statement. And then perhaps ask yourself whether the UK isn't better off with the upcoming Law and Order - where the scripts have been taken from the American version and simply translated to London - or Are You Being Served?.
Indeed, many British shows are quite good and have been transferred to the US. Many British shows are also absolute garbage.
Unlike America?
No need to start sniping. SciFi did say he was generalising. Although you did identify one of only a handful of shows the UK has developed from a US script as compared to the literally hundreds the US remade from the UK (...and destroyed. They seriously made a pilot for a Fawlty Towers remake where the producers decided to write out Basil Fawlty).
There is garbage on UK TV. There is garbage on US TV. But when taking about the notable shows, I think it's pretty obvious which country comes out on top. ;-)
hey this is doc from the itunes podcast: Heroes of Science Fiction and Fantasy, i like them both. No need to draw a line in the sand, not necessary. However, it did get me to come to this site. Thanks for the article. website www.heroesofsciencefictionandfantasy.com voicemail 1-206-333-1297
The real question:
Babylon 5 vs Doctor Who
Harlan Ellison would agree: B5.
Riley, you just made my list.
(Returns to polishing the bat...)
I like both shows so I dont involve myself in debating for or against, but why are the Klingons quite obviously Vietnamese? Romulans are Japanese?
Those are pretty serious charges to level against Roddenberry. You really ought to back them up properly.
The visual appearance of both races in the original series does seem vaguely reminiscent of Vietnamese and Japanese. I think the evidence speaks for itself. It isn't a criticism or even an accusation. Media ideology is often a subconscious phenomenon where media artifacts unwittingly reflect current societal trends. Back in the 1960s, when trying to design a villainous face, Americans would identify 'bad guy' more with those visual characteristics. That's just natural. It's just that Star Trek presents a pretty clear example of this.
In the later series, the Klingons were changed so much this subtext was lost, but if you look at the original Klingons, there is a clear likeness to South East Asian features.
But this is where I could end up boring everyone with media psychology, ideology and other words ending in 'ology.
At the end of the day, I recommend anyone reading this post and wanting to launch into a serious debate take the three words "cheek", "tongue" and "in" and rearrange them into a sentence.
"So the people who value strong storylines and creative ideas watch Doctor Who and those that get excited about the physics of black holes watch Star Trek."
...well, that just can't be right, because I value strong storylines, am not particularly excited (although I don't think I'd mind learning) about black holes, and having sampled both, generally lean closer to Star Trek.
Unless that statement was literal, in which case I withdraw the objection; certainly, I see no reason for either of those groups not to watch either show.
Comparisons are odious. But there's no comparison here.
You may as well compare lemons and ice skates.
Dr Who is simply the best