Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robin Bland

Doctor Who - General Discussion

344 posts in this topic

... I would also guess that BBC is smart enough to gauge fan reaction, and if it's highly negative, the new guy will be fired.

Apologies for curtailing your post Kirok, I just wanted to respond to this point, too... Yeah, I think the BBC know what they have. It is one of their international flagship properties, and BBC International and BBC America have high stakes in the show too, so the appointment of Chibnall is an act of confidence. Many factors play into such appointments - and there aren't many creators as high-profile and successful as Chibnall in the UK. He is, as they say, "a pair of safe hands." While fans have a voice, it's also about the wider view - not only the immediate ratings, but how the show plays long-term via all kinds of other media. I think we'll get him for a minimum of two seasons, and who knows, certainly a change of Doctor either directly before or a short way into his stewardship. At that point, you have, more or less, a whole new show. The real test is how it'll be received on a worldwide scale, because that's the playing field for Doctor Who now. And, not to bring politics into it, but with the UK facing a serious economic downturn due to the possibility of Brexit, this weird little show is one of the country's most valuable and significant cultural exports. Chibnall will be feeling the pressure, so we can be sure that he will give it his best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of a previous Doctor returning to the role isn't a new one - Sydney Newman, one of the original creators of the show, made a list of recommendations at the end of the 80s to the BBC saying Patrick Troughton should be brought back. Tom Baker was proposed as a fourth Doctor "who never regenerated" for the aborted 1993 30th anniversary special the Dark Dimension. But it's an exercise in nostalgia and while the fanboy in me might enjoy it in the short term, I think as a way of continuing the show, it's a death sentence. You never give people what they think they want. You give them what they don't know they want. (Unless you're JJ Abrams, who expertly re-coats old stuff as new. But that's another thread, sorry...)

That said, I love the occasional multi-Doctor anniversary special, and think there's a real case for "Doctor flashback" episodes - I still think a "Doctor-lite" episode could bring back McGann as the eighth Doctor for a one-off adventure and it would be rapturously received. But they have to remain as special occasions, celebrating and elaborating upon what has gone, but with the prow of the ship forever pointed at the inventive future.

^
Your words.  Make better.  What think... I do... 
:thumbup: :P

As to showrunner, I find it very difficult to choose between RTD and Moffat. I think they both have strengths and weaknesses, and both understand Doctor Who from the inside out. They just express it in different ways and both, to my mind, are inordinately successful at it. I think I prefer Moffat's "high-concept" stuff, but I miss RTD's ear for dialogue and easy characterization. But that's reducing what they both gave to two small qualities in a body of work that is, frankly, monumental.

Sean Pertwee's an interesting actor and, like his dad, he has a great face. He's got the pedigree! Would he make a good Doctor? I dunno, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to seeing him try. I actually think he'd make a better Master. Or maybe some all-new, recurring villain.

^
That could work.  
I've seen a bit of Pertwee in "Gotham" and while I junked the show, I found him intriguing as Alfred.  As for his playing the Doctor?  I dunno.   Above all else, the Doctor has to have a certain charm and eccentricity; an element of 'madcap' that I just don't get from Pertwee Jr.  

But perhaps that's not fair on my part; judging him on ONE role.  Who knows?

And yes, as a villain?  I could definitely see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched Doctor Who since the reboot.  In that time, there have been 4 actors playing the title role.  I've seen a few classic doctors here and there.  But for this purpose, forget that. 

BBC is 2 for 2 on show runners, and 4 for 4 on choosing Doctors.

 

So if they went backward and brought back Smith, I'm fine with it.  If Capaldi regenerates into Smith, but is shown to be distinctive, you have a chance to do something never done before--one actor playing two very different versions.  Not that this is the only trait, but he could say, "fezzes are not cool."  Maybe he isn't as warm.  Who knows?

If they don't go with Smith, I'm ok with it too.  I'd actually like Capaldi to stick around.

I also trust the judgment on the new showrunner.  I'm SURE they were very careful as to who they chose.  Fan reaction and ratings will matter.  I think they may have some issues due to taking too long of a break.

But, I also think that as long as the writing is strong, the show will gain back ratings.  The only way the writing will remain strong is if Moffat's successor is worthy.

 

Pertwee on Gotham is excellent.  Alfred is nothing like The Doctor.  So of course it would be hard to gauge.  Thing is, would they even consider a man of Pertwee's age at this time?  If he WERE the Doctor, they could even write an episode where for some reason, he has to impersonate the Third Doctor. 

Or because of his resemblance, they could technically do a multidoctor episode with him taking on his father's role as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched Doctor Who since the reboot.  In that time, there have been 4 actors playing the title role.  I've seen a few classic doctors here and there.  But for this purpose, forget that.

Well, therein lies the problem.
Because the show had a LOOOOONG history and evolution before 2005.  

It's like saying "I'm a fan of VGR and ENT.  Based only on what I've seen with VGR and ENT, all of Star Trek should do this..."

 

I prefer a new show runner and/or writers to see the totality of the series and not just post 2005...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's quite the same since unlike Trek, this is the same character, and the show has truly honored its history.  They didn't exactly throw the Doctor off a bridge and make a bigger deal out of a lost a cat. 

I TOTALLY agree with you about a show runner.  Someone who only watched since 2005 would not be qualified.  You have to truly be an expert on a show like this, and I think that's why Moffat and Davies were so good at what they did.  They were experts.  They also were good at joining the old with the new, in a way that those not familiar with the old could follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's quite the same since unlike Trek, this is the same character, and the show has truly honored its history.  They didn't exactly throw the Doctor off a bridge and make a bigger deal out of a lost a cat. 

I TOTALLY agree with you about a show runner.  Someone who only watched since 2005 would not be qualified.  You have to truly be an expert on a show like this, and I think that's why Moffat and Davies were so good at what they did.  They were experts.  They also were good at joining the old with the new, in a way that those not familiar with the old could follow.

By that metric, your very own opinion loses some value I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Sean Pertwee in a few things, and he's always struck me as a far grittier performer than his late father, whose fortés were light comedy and, well, Doctor Who. That was why I suggested he might make a good Master. I haven't seen him in Gotham, though.  Despite his pedigree, I absolutely wouldn't want to see him attempt to recreate his father's incarnation of the Time Lord, not in live action, anyway.* I'd want to see him bring something new to the show. I think that's fairer to him as a performer, and to the members of the audience who recall his father's portrayal. Recasting an established Doctor is also not unprecedented in Doctor Who: the first Doctor was recast and Richard Hurndall took the late William Hartnell's place in the 20th anniversary story The Five Doctors. Fans agree and disagree about how successful that was, but the consensus is that is shouldn't really be tried again, not onscreen anyway. That said (also see below)...

Another version of Smith... I don't think I'd want to see this. Not now, not right after Capaldi.

 

*Here's another angle on returning actors to the show - an animated Doctor Who, a kind of "Tales from the TARDIS" that revisits past Doctors and companions within their established timelines. It'd be like Big Finish, except with visuals and motion. This has been mooted a lot in fan-turned-pro circles in recent years. Seeing as there are licensed BBC recons of missing episodes, I think it might just get off the ground at some point but of course, the big problem is financing it. But, as mooted, all living Doctors and companions could reprise their roles as the, er time differential is sorted out. You don't have to worry about Peter Davison looking years older as the fifth Doctor, because he's animated. You could even get Sean Pertwee to return to mimic his dad (by all accounts, he does a wicked impersonation) or Frazer Hines to do the second Doctor. Whether or not such a show would have wide enough an appeal to sustain it - well, that's the big question. Fans would watch it of course, but would it have the broader appeal necessary to make it viable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Sean Pertwee in a few things, and he's always struck me as a far grittier performer than his late father, whose fortés were light comedy and, well, Doctor Who. That was why I suggested he might make a good Master. I haven't seen him in Gotham, though.  Despite his pedigree, I absolutely wouldn't want to see him attempt to recreate his father's incarnation of the Time Lord, not in live action, anyway.* I'd want to see him bring something new to the show. I think that's fairer to him as a performer, and to the members of the audience who recall his father's portrayal. Recasting an established Doctor is also not unprecedented in Doctor Who: the first Doctor was recast and Richard Hurndall took the late William Hartnell's place in the 20th anniversary story The Five Doctors. Fans agree and disagree about how successful that was, but the consensus is that is shouldn't really be tried again, not onscreen anyway. That said (also see below)...

Another version of Smith... I don't think I'd want to see this. Not now, not right after Capaldi.

 

*Here's another angle on returning actors to the show - an animated Doctor Who, a kind of "Tales from the TARDIS" that revisits past Doctors and companions within their established timelines. It'd be like Big Finish, except with visuals and motion. This has been mooted a lot in fan-turned-pro circles in recent years. Seeing as there are licensed BBC recons of missing episodes, I think it might just get off the ground at some point but of course, the big problem is financing it. But, as mooted, all living Doctors and companions could reprise their roles as the, er time differential is sorted out. You don't have to worry about Peter Davison looking years older as the fifth Doctor, because he's animated. You could even get Sean Pertwee to return to mimic his dad (by all accounts, he does a wicked impersonation) or Frazer Hines to do the second Doctor. Whether or not such a show would have wide enough an appeal to sustain it - well, that's the big question. Fans would watch it of course, but would it have the broader appeal necessary to make it viable?

^
This is one of the reasons I enjoy the Titan DW comics; you can see more adventures of whichever Doctor you prefer.   Granted, 
you don't 'hear' their voices (via the actors), but with a bit of imagination, you can... ;)

So yeah, I'd love an animated version; sure.  

But the live-action series should always progress in a forward direction.   DW is all about regeneration; both physical and metaphorical.  He is a character that shares traits with predecessors, but also gets to reinvent himself a bit with each roll of the dice... that's an aspect of the character I'm very much in love with; the idea that if you screw up one life, you get another chance with a new one.   

And you get to keep your 'ride' too.  :laugh:

Having a Doctor regenerate into his former self would be like the Enterprise only visiting Federation planets; it could still be an interesting show, but it would be Star TREK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that metric, your very own opinion loses some value I guess.

If I were applying as a showrunner, absolutely.  Even if I were professionally qualified due to work in other areas, my lack of experience and knowledge on classic Doctor Who would make me unqualified for the job.  There aren't too many franchises like Doctor Who.  Star Trek may be the only equivalent.

As for Sean Pertwee, I think if we were in a situation where he were cast as the Doctor, as unlikely as it is,I think it would be a really fun idea to have him impersonate the Third Doctor.  Such an episode would be a lighthearted episode--a filler--that would give fans something to talk about.

I actually liked The Five Doctors, and thought that the actor who replaced Hartnell was fine in the role.  Pertwee could EASILY step in as the Third Doctor if needed, though like I said, in my version, where he is say, the 13th Doctor, he would be the 13th Doctor impersonating the 3rd Doctor, based on whatever plot contrivance they have.

*Here's another angle on returning actors to the show - an animated Doctor Who, a kind of "Tales from the TARDIS" that revisits past Doctors and companions within their established timelines. It'd be like Big Finish, except with visuals and motion. This has been mooted a lot in fan-turned-pro circles in recent years. Seeing as there are licensed BBC recons of missing episodes, I think it might just get off the ground at some point but of course, the big problem is financing it. But, as mooted, all living Doctors and companions could reprise their roles as the, er time differential is sorted out. You don't have to worry about Peter Davison looking years older as the fifth Doctor, because he's animated. You could even get Sean Pertwee to return to mimic his dad (by all accounts, he does a wicked impersonation) or Frazer Hines to do the second Doctor. Whether or not such a show would have wide enough an appeal to sustain it - well, that's the big question. Fans would watch it of course, but would it have the broader appeal necessary to make it viable?

 

I've been arguing that Star Trek should have been doing this with original series actors for years.  An animated series like that is not only viable, you could do some major multidoctor stories that couldn't be done in live action.

 

I think a show like that would have appeal--but not get the same ratings as the modern live action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually liked The Five Doctors, and thought that the actor who replaced Hartnell was fine in the role.  Pertwee could EASILY step in as the Third Doctor if needed, though like I said, in my version, where he is say, the 13th Doctor, he would be the 13th Doctor impersonating the 3rd Doctor, based on whatever plot contrivance they have.

Pertwee may look like his old man, but there is a very different vibe about him.   I can't see Sean Pertwee singing those crazy Venusian lullabies or projecting that warm, paternal vibe his father did (and Pertwee wasn't even a favorite of mine; but he was solid in the role).   Sean Pertwee strikes me as more of a two-fisted tough guy; his father was more of a dandy sort.   Even the younger Pertwee's Alfred seems a bit 'tougher.'   I don't know. 

Not saying that it couldn't work, but I'm not sure it's even necessary...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pertwee may look like his old man, but there is a very different vibe about him.   I can't see Sean Pertwee singing those crazy Venusian lullabies or projecting that warm, paternal vibe his father did (and Pertwee wasn't even a favorite of mine; but he was solid in the role).   Sean Pertwee strikes me as more of a two-fisted tough guy; his father was more of a dandy sort.   Even the younger Pertwee's Alfred seems a bit 'tougher.'   I don't know. 

Not saying that it couldn't work, but I'm not sure it's even necessary...

 

But Alfred is the character he's playing.  He's a bit of a badass.  The ability to play different roles is what distinguishes some actors.  Obviously it's a different example but it's a good analog--look at Leslie Nielsen.  The man never really did comedy until Airplane.  He was also that two fisted tough guy.  The bad guys in westerns.  That kind of actor.

 

Then he did Airplane, which led to Police Squad, and today, most people don't even realize he wasn't always funny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Adventure in Time and Space well enough, I'm down.  The position is more of a facilitator kind of position, not necessarily a creative input kind of gig.  More of "you can't afford that, scale it down!" kind of position. But good for him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Adventure in Time and Space well enough, I'm down.  The position is more of a facilitator kind of position, not necessarily a creative input kind of gig.  More of "you can't afford that, scale it down!" kind of position. But good for him!

I enjoyed it very much.

I wish ST has some kind of 'making of' TV movie to coincide with its 50th, but oh well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Adventure in Time and Space well enough, I'm down.  The position is more of a facilitator kind of position, not necessarily a creative input kind of gig.  More of "you can't afford that, scale it down!" kind of position. But good for him!

I enjoyed it very much.

I wish ST has some kind of 'making of' TV movie to coincide with its 50th, but oh well...

When you think about it, Star Trek and Doctor Who are probably the most important SF shows of all time. They're not just shows, they're cultural phenomena that span both the late 20th and early 21st century. The BBC did a pretty good job with Doctor Who, as did all its spin-off licensors. It's great that we get a movie for Star Trek, but although the new TV show has been announced its representation beyond that is deeply underwhelming. they could've been some sort of celebratory TV special. And beyond that - some cmic books and a few new books. It feels undercooked for something that should be huge.

But, OT, this guy certainly sounds like he has the chops. It's a good start for the news runup to Chibnall's version of the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Adventure in Time and Space well enough, I'm down.  The position is more of a facilitator kind of position, not necessarily a creative input kind of gig.  More of "you can't afford that, scale it down!" kind of position. But good for him!

I enjoyed it very much.

I wish ST has some kind of 'making of' TV movie to coincide with its 50th, but oh well...

When you think about it, Star Trek and Doctor Who are probably the most important SF shows of all time. They're not just shows, they're cultural phenomena that span both the late 20th and early 21st century. The BBC did a pretty good job with Doctor Who, as did all its spin-off licensors. It's great that we get a movie for Star Trek, but although the new TV show has been announced its representation beyond that is deeply underwhelming. they could've been some sort of celebratory TV special. And beyond that - some cmic books and a few new books. It feels undercooked for something that should be huge.

But, OT, this guy certainly sounds like he has the chops. It's a good start for the news runup to Chibnall's version of the show.

Agreed. 
And who knows what he'll bring to it?  Could be a pleasant surprise (much as RTD brought his own feel to it).

And I thought DW had a terrific 50th; in that year alone we had some tremendous episodes, a making-of TV movie (the aforementioned "Adventure in Space and Time"), a terrific multi-Doctor 'movie' "Day of the Doctor" (my wife and I saw it in 3D in a theatre too!), webisodes, and a ton of books/merchandising.    It was a multimedia event.   The BBC really did right by their franchise. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked Adventure in Time and Space well enough, I'm down.  The position is more of a facilitator kind of position, not necessarily a creative input kind of gig.  More of "you can't afford that, scale it down!" kind of position. But good for him!

I enjoyed it very much.

I wish ST has some kind of 'making of' TV movie to coincide with its 50th, but oh well...

When you think about it, Star Trek and Doctor Who are probably the most important SF shows of all time. They're not just shows, they're cultural phenomena that span both the late 20th and early 21st century. The BBC did a pretty good job with Doctor Who, as did all its spin-off licensors. It's great that we get a movie for Star Trek, but although the new TV show has been announced its representation beyond that is deeply underwhelming. they could've been some sort of celebratory TV special. And beyond that - some cmic books and a few new books. It feels undercooked for something that should be huge.

But, OT, this guy certainly sounds like he has the chops. It's a good start for the news runup to Chibnall's version of the show.

Agreed. 
And who knows what he'll bring to it?  Could be a pleasant surprise (much as RTD brought his own feel to it).

And I thought DW had a terrific 50th; in that year alone we had some tremendous episodes, a making-of TV movie (the aforementioned "Adventure in Space and Time"), a terrific multi-Doctor 'movie' "Day of the Doctor" (my wife and I saw it in 3D in a theatre too!), webisodes, and a ton of books/merchandising.    It was a multimedia event.   The BBC really did right by their franchise. :thumbup:

They really did. So far Trek has a movie, some conventions and live events, a pop song, and some news of a new show. It feels a little low key...but Trek isn't really in the same place Who was during it's 50th.  And just getting news of anew series is pretty solid for me (based on where we were at).  Trek had a big event during it's 30th (with two anniversary episodes on DS9 and Voyager as well as First Contact hitting theaters)...and I would say that Trials and Tribble-ations certainly paved the way for the "Name of the Doctor" which lead in to "Day of the Doctor." 

We could lament Trek's 50th being a bit of a downer compared to Who's party...but I figure if you compare Who's 30th anniversary to Trek's?  You'd see that at the time the roles were totally reversed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think about it, Star Trek and Doctor Who are probably the most important SF shows of all time. They're not just shows, they're cultural phenomena that span both the late 20th and early 21st century. The BBC did a pretty good job with Doctor Who, as did all its spin-off licensors. It's great that we get a movie for Star Trek, but although the new TV show has been announced its representation beyond that is deeply underwhelming. they could've been some sort of celebratory TV special. And beyond that - some cmic books and a few new books. It feels undercooked for something that should be huge.

But, OT, this guy certainly sounds like he has the chops. It's a good start for the news runup to Chibnall's version of the show.

I think it's fair, though I also think that ST is far more important and DW is a distant second.  DW didn't really get going until like 10 years ago in the US.  Big in the UK, but it's just not the same audience.

However, when it comes to how the franchises are run today, DW kicks the crap out of ST, which is why I feel DW is still on the rise, and ST is just hanging in, despite attempts to make it relevant with mindless explosions.

The good news is that I'm hearing critics like this movie better than STID, but the bad news is that for a 50th anniversary, ST is lacking big time.

DW really milked the anniversary.  ST is making a big budget TOS episode, which is nice, but not SPECIAL.

Trials and Tribbleations was the greatest anniversary tribute Trek ever did.  I give it a 9 out of 10. 

I just wish the 50th got something on that level or better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fair, though I also think that ST is far more important and DW is a distant second.  DW didn't really get going until like 10 years ago in the US.  Big in the UK, but it's just not the same audience.

^
Not quite.   And hardly a 'distant second'; that's a uniquely American perspective, but not entirely accurate...

I see a lot more DW merchandise (my local bookstore is overflowing with DW books/merchandise) and younger fans than I do with Star Trek these days.   My own grandniece is 13 years old, and she loves DW; to her, ST is something her dad and uncle watched.   

ST is an aging franchise (and I don't mean just chronologically because DW is older by three years; I mean ideologically).    Other than the surge of new fans who respond to the Bad Robot movies, I'd say its popularity has been more or less stagnant (perhaps the new series will change that?  I dunno).   ST had its heyday in the '90s when it had several concurrent series and regular movies in theatres.   DW today is where ST was in the '90s; rapidly gaining newer (and more importantly YOUNGER) fans who will carry that popularity a lot further than Star Trek.  

If one were to measure it ONLY in monetary terms?  Then yes; I'd say ST has deeper pockets but in terms of younger and more enthusiastic fans?  I think Dr Who is rapidly eclipsing Star Trek around the world (and not just in the US). 

My wife says that for the last few years, a LOT of her students wear DW cosplay on Halloween, or have DW viewing parties, etc.  Halloween was a sea of fezzes the last few years.   But hardly ANY of them (if any of them) talk about ST.   Star Wars yes, but not Star Trek.  DW is 'cool' today, whereas ST still has a little stigma of 'nerdiness' to it.   

Personally I love both pretty much equally; I'd be very hard-pressed to pick a favorite.   And in an ideal world, it shouldn't be a competition but that's one of the downsides of a free market... little room for sentiment when competing for fans' money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a distant second because I don't feel DW was anywhere close to the worldwide phenomenon Star Trek was.  Yes, in the UK it arguably was.  But worldwide?  I don't think so.  I'm fairly up on sci-fi, and never watched any DW until the 2005 reboot started, and I got in there about Season 3 with a binge watch.

 

I will agree 100 percent that Trek's been stagnant, and DW has been on the rise- (which is amazing since even the reboot is 11 years old).  And absolutely ST is the aging franchise.

And maybe TODAY--you can certainly argue DW has even surpassed ST.  But overall over the last 50 years?  I think ST dwarfed DW.

 

DW today--I think it's cooler than ST.  And I believe the reason is because it's just really well run and Star Trek just isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a distant second because I don't feel DW was anywhere close to the worldwide phenomenon Star Trek was.  Yes, in the UK it arguably was.  But worldwide?  I don't think so.  I'm fairly up on sci-fi, and never watched any DW until the 2005 reboot started, and I got in there about Season 3 with a binge watch.

 

I will agree 100 percent that Trek's been stagnant, and DW has been on the rise- (which is amazing since even the reboot is 11 years old).  And absolutely ST is the aging franchise.

And maybe TODAY--you can certainly argue DW has even surpassed ST.  But overall over the last 50 years?  I think ST dwarfed DW.

 

DW today--I think it's cooler than ST.  And I believe the reason is because it's just really well run and Star Trek just isn't.

 

It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Or Europe and America. Your estimation of DW is very US-centric. Don't underestimate the grassroots fandom DW has had worldwide for the past fifty years. No, it never had the export muscle Trek has had, but nothing else has the same marketing power as Hollywood. DW's always been there - away from your home soil - and made inroads in many territories Trek never touched. That said, I've no doubt that Trek is better known as a franchise worldwide - but it absolutely does not have the singular, current and incredibly broad appeal DW has managed in the past decade.

My point was not to compare how they're alike or unalike, because making lists about such things is ultimately reductive. Neither was it to compare their cultural reach - it was simply to say that they both are incredibly important cultural phenomena that actually transcend their origin countries - and that one was properly celebrated on its anniversary, and the other isn't being. Not to my mind, anyway. It's interesting that one comes from a purely capitalist origin point and the other from a public service broadcaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, even if that's true, the UK has about 1/5th the population of the US, so something that's a big hit here, is naturally going to have a much bigger audience.  Plus, US TV dominated the entertainment business, and DW just wasn't that big of a deal here.  You're right--the Hollywood marketing power was a HUGE difference, and that's natural.  That's why even a minor hit in the US was a bigger hit than DW, even though DW was wildly popular in the UK. 

I couldn't agree more about the last decade.  I think what DW did in the last decade was a genius way of restarting a franchise without ruining it for those that loved it before.

I think a great comparison of how the franchises are run is how they dealt with their 50th anniversaries. DW just destroyed ST on this front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a distant second because I don't feel DW was anywhere close to the worldwide phenomenon Star Trek was.  Yes, in the UK it arguably was.  But worldwide?  I don't think so.  I'm fairly up on sci-fi, and never watched any DW until the 2005 reboot started, and I got in there about Season 3 with a binge watch.

 

I will agree 100 percent that Trek's been stagnant, and DW has been on the rise- (which is amazing since even the reboot is 11 years old).  And absolutely ST is the aging franchise.

And maybe TODAY--you can certainly argue DW has even surpassed ST.  But overall over the last 50 years?  I think ST dwarfed DW.

 

DW today--I think it's cooler than ST.  And I believe the reason is because it's just really well run and Star Trek just isn't.

 

It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Or Europe and America. Your estimation of DW is very US-centric. Don't underestimate the grassroots fandom DW has had worldwide for the past fifty years. No, it never had the export muscle Trek has had, but nothing else has the same marketing power as Hollywood. DW's always been there - away from your home soil - and made inroads in many territories Trek never touched. That said, I've no doubt that Trek is better known as a franchise worldwide - but it absolutely does not have the singular, current and incredibly broad appeal DW has managed in the past decade.

My point was not to compare how they're alike or unalike, because making lists about such things is ultimately reductive. Neither was it to compare their cultural reach - it was simply to say that they both are incredibly important cultural phenomena that actually transcend their origin countries - and that one was properly celebrated on its anniversary, and the other isn't being. Not to my mind, anyway. It's interesting that one comes from a purely capitalist origin point and the other from a public service broadcaster.

^
This.  Very much this...

Well, even if that's true, the UK has about 1/5th the population of the US, so something that's a big hit here, is naturally going to have a much bigger audience.

Yeah, and DW still has mass international fandom as well; the US population is only about 5% of the world, mind you...

There were DW fans three good years before ST.   And DW had already spun off two feature films from the TV show back in 1965 (about 14 years before ST:TMP...).  Granted, they weren't as successful as the ST movie franchise, but they were also made on a fraction of the budget too...

Again, apples and oranges.  Comparison is valid only in that they are two science fiction franchises with huge followings.  But currently, I'd say DW is waxing while ST is waning.  DW is far cooler with young people than ST.    In youth popularity, ST has been eclipsed for a while now; part of that also had to do with that little franchise from a galaxy far, far away...

Star Wars has also taken ST to the cleaners (both in popularity and fiscally).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TODAY it has a mass international fandom--but back in the 1970s/80s/90s, it did not.

Not in Trek's league. 

But yes, I would totally agree that DW is waxing and ST is waning.  That's very fair.  And that's due to the competence of the respective people in charge. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TODAY it has a mass international fandom--but back in the 1970s/80s/90s, it did not.

I beg to differ... DW was having its heyday in the '70s (during the Tom Baker years) while ST was struggling to put together a first movie.

Again, you're speaking from a purely American perspective.    You can't accurately gauge international appeal from a fixed vantage point in the US.   It's like saying it's cold in Buffalo, NY tonight so it's cold everywhere. 

And as Robin Bland pointed out, DW was on free BBC television; not commercial-supported.   There was no selling of soap to keep it on the air.   It stayed alive for 26 straight years (1963-89) by popularity alone.   Even ST at its peak couldn't match that; the longest run ST has ever had (over 4 separate series) was 18 years.   Still 8 years shy of DW's record.  

If you're gauging success only in American dollar$, then your gauge needs calibrating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0