Great show. Many thanks, Dan, Charlotte, Jon, Matt and Scott. I've never been a Star Trek fan. I was a regular viewer, though. If it was on in the 1970s, I was watching. And the cartoon - I loved that! I went to see the first movie with my family; we never went to any of the others. I came to love it years later when seeing the extended version on TV. And I watched all of The Next Generation and Voyager. Deep Space Nine started showing on Thursdays I think, when BBC2 were still showing The Next Generation on Wednesdays, and I gave up four episodes in; one episode of Star Trek per week was enough for me. And I saw the first couple of series of Enterprise on Channel 4, and liked it, but failed to keep up when it came back. Did they move it to another night? I can't remember. I've not seen any of the subsequent Star Trek series. I think More4 may've shown a series or two of Discovery, but I'd heard such bad things about it, I didn't bother. And so my point is... For the general audience, would a Doctor Who / Star Trek crossover make any sense? If even I haven't kept up with modern Star Trek and wouldn't know who anyone is, it may as well be any other spaceship crew that the Doctor meets. The press might try to whip it up as some big thing - "Beam Me Up, Doccy!" - but when was Star Trek still a big thing in this country? Then again, since "viewing habits have changed" and fewer people watch television, maybe it doesn't matter. They can do it, and it can be talked about on RU-vid, and it'll be neither fish nor foul, satisfying neither fanbase, nor fans of both. Or have I just grown too cynical in recent years? With the right script, maybe it could work. But would I be interested in seeing it? I just want Doctor Who to be good again. That's the very first box that needs to be ticked. Set your phasers set to stun me in that respect, please, Russell.
Many thanks, Dan and all, these comic con-related instalments have been quite riveting, to say nothing of giving an opportunity for much humour from all concerned! Hugely impressed by Matt's heartfelt speech about Davies' obsession with ideology, and grateful for him reminding me of Primeval, a decent science fiction series that impressed throughout its multiple seasons; much like Dan, however, I had no idea of its international popularity. Great to see Scott back, because I always find his good-natured, scathing analysis to be invariably on the money. Although extremely funny, Jon's suggestion that Gatwa's clothes were photoshopped onto his naked body was far too plausible for comfort, as was his quip about a standing policy where sacked lead actresses must still appear in subsequent series. I found Davies to be much more at ease in Kurzman's company than in that of his two leads. That's not to say that there was any solace to be had from witnessing a 'two for one' of dedicated saboteurs, so clearly in harmony with each other. During the nineties, in addition to being catered for by VHS Doctor Who, Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager were almost of equal science fiction importance to me, serving as a far more desirable, meaningful coincidence of the two franchises than anything dreamt of in Davies' and Kurzman's philosophy. I still can't process Davies so blatantly directing the proceedings to ideologies and moreover, needing not even the flimsiest of pretexts to do so, admiring all of your valid criticisms of it. However, Charlotte's ability to denounce a situation by witheringly stating it for what it is, together with offering a ready, inarguable solution, seemingly in no time at all, remains an absolute joy to behold. The late, great Tommy Cooper, after years of painstaking effort, arrived upon an act so polished, the comedian becoming so adored, that when out and about in shops etc, people would often burst into joyous laughter. Cooper was actually irritated by this, never comfortable with praise coming on such a kneejerk basis, but phenomena like this take on a life of their own and the public response never diminished. Doctor Who, as unique a television concept as is imaginable, aspired to an effect very similar to that of Cooper's, in terms of public goodwill, when revived by Russel T Davies in 2005. Not by Davies' efforts alone, but coming from over a quarter of a century's worth of nurturing, innovation and elbow grease by people who knew what they had. For his part, being a lifelong fan, that version of Davies also knew, daubing his own signature on, but never overwriting, those essential elements. The show became loved, an obsession for the masses and, for this fan at least, the wish fulfilment of knowing what it would be like if everyone felt the same way about it as he did. It could be described as a time of madness, tales being told of people in minor car accidents who, whilst being ushered into ambulances, would behest of loved ones: "Don't forget to tape Doctor Who!" It was everywhere, featuring on the most unlikely of television programmes, to undoubted excess, but, for a good while, the world kept wanting more. The point I'm labouring to make is that these qualities have been inherent from the beginning, that despite the show currently being twisted into a grotesque parody of itself, it has an immortal potential to affect an audience in the manner described. When treated properly, presented in its proper manner, Doctor Who will always entertain, always captivate and always endure. Thanks again, guys and all the best for now. Paul
I don't feel a crossover between the 2 shows would work personally, But back in 2005 I did often wonder what it would be like if Ecclestone and Scott Bakula's Archer teamed up against a joint threat. Two proper geezers.
I had an idea that I put in the chat: What if Belinda Chandra were contemporary, but an astronaut with India's space programme, and she meets the Doctor in a space station or spaceship in orbit, or maybe on the moon? That would be interesting. She would have a knowledge of science and space, and yet be out of her depth when placed in many of the Doctor's now fantasy based adventures. After ordinary girl Rose Tyler, Russell gave us medical student Martha Jones. After ordinary girl Ruby Sunday, might he again be giving us a more educated, professional character?
Classic Doctor Who first, then Blake's 7 followed by Red Dwarf, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Timeless, Colony, Farscape before it went weird, and Humans. Modern Who and Start Trek aren’t for me.
Interesting talk guys. I was watching all the comic con interview just recently and I have to say i despise Alex Kurtzman's vision of Star Trek as well as him as a person he completely misunderstands the show and is completely going against Gene Roddenberry's vision of the show and going against the do's and the dont's of the show he does not respect the history they showed footage of all of "new" Star Trek and Dr. Who before the interview none of them showed any footage of Classic Who or the original Star Trek series what so ever it's like there ashamed to show the old stuff and Alex Kurtzman said he'd be happy to write for Dr. Who if asked and it's possible RTD might just do that which is my biggest worry no offense to americans but no american should touch Dr. Who and he will just ruin Dr. Who further. In my opinion Dr. Who and Star Trek should be seperate entities different universes and I hope they don't do this crossover otherwise this is where I might be done with both shows it's getting abit fanwanky now at this point their writing as "fans" not "professional writers". As for the new companion I really, really, really do hope and pray she's not going to be another predictable modern day earth companion again it's becoming very old, very tired and very boring people need to remind RTD he's writing a science fiction series not a soap opera as I call his version of Dr. Who "Soap Who" because it's always about a companions family which is another thing I'm getting so sick of it's been the same trend for the last 20 years almost they need to really shake things up and take risks. With the Belinda character it would be nice if she was another Time Lord or something completely different maybe the twist is she's Frobisher all along but that's just wishful thinking 😊.
As someone said: Kurtzman probably knows he's on his way out. Davis is too stupid, or too arrogant, probably both, to realise he's in the same position.
Sorry, what about either of these very well established franchises needs saving? Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Doctor Who, I've watched some of it, I respect it as an icon of British science fiction and appreciate that it continues to be the standard bearer for British sci-fi and I can see how much it means to a very many people - I can see the parallels between Trek and Who. These are timeless institutions that don't need 'saving'. The fact that some fans don't like all Star Trek or all Doctor Who is nothing new. With every new incarnation of either show, they have been met with a vocal few bemoaning "the death of the franchise!" - in reality these are two ideas that over the course of 60 years have not 'died' - they've both taken creative breaks, they've reinvented themselves and they've carried on. Its very short-sighted of you to say that Alex Kurtzman isn't liked by Star Trek fans, just as it was short sighted of fans in the 90s and 00s to make sweeping statements about Rick Berman and Brannon Braga - I am a Star Trek fan and I don't hate Kurtzman at all. Do I agree with all of the decisions he or his team have made? no, but I'm not in a position where I'm managing a billion dollar global franchise where multiple projects are happening simultaneously, I'm also reasoned enough to know that if I or any other Trekkie was in his shoes, we'd face the same minority of fans who just look for something to be angry about. Everything and anything in life is never going to satisfy all people. Doctor Who, Star Trek are fictional universes that are both subjective - If you didn't like Discovery, maybe you'll love Strange New Worlds, if you don't like any of the new Star Trek or Doctor Who series, then there's a vast back-catalogue of series that you can continue to enjoy. In my opinion, throughout this video, you have spent far too long generalising fans and moaning about subjective things that are personal to the viewer and talk in sweeping statements. I can't speak for Doctor Who but as a die-hard Trekkie I can tell you that Discovery was wildly popular, appearing a number of times in the Nielsen top 10 streaming shows, its popularity made it viable to produce multiple spin-offs; the Short Treks, Lower Decks, Picard, Prodigy (which is now in it's second season on Netflix - hoping to hear world on a 3rd season soon), Strange New Worlds (which has garnered huge praise from critics and fans across the world), and we have new productions coming down the line: Starfleet Academy starring Holly Hunter and Paul Giamatti among other young actors and returning stars from older Trek shows, we have the first indie Trek movie: Section 31 starring Academy Award Winner Michelle Yeoh... Oh and lets not forget that this is all under the stewardship of Alex Kurtzman.... In fact, the highest grossing Star Trek movie to-date was co-written by him, so please, tell me where, how and why Star Trek needs saving? You might not like it anymore, you may never have liked it, but it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, drawing in old and new fans through multiple new and old shows and movies, big named actors, with Paramount committing millions of dollars to its production across multiple spin-off shows and movies. Lets also not forget that the older Star Trek shows are still shown world-wide on terrestrial TV, on Netflix, on Amazon and on Paramount Plus. In the movie theatres, Star Trek has made so far over 1.4 billion dollars domestically (US) and has had, and continues to pioneer significant cultural and social influence within the sciences, technologies and innovation industries from influencing real-world science and technological innovations such as the mobile phone, tablet and MRI scanner, to inspiring children to become astronauts, politicians, scientists, doctors, leaders... Some fans might not like Discovery, but talk to someone who does like Discovery and they'll tell you why they like it. You might like the original or Next Gen or DS9... But a word to the wise, just because you personally don't like something, doesn't mean that thing needs saving or changing. As fans of Star Trek, Doctor Who, Star Wars, Marvel, DC and other big, long-lasting franchises, we have the choice to still love the thing overall, love that other people love bits about it we don't necessarily like, and still come to the end of that conversation as fans and as people who don't speak in generalised, sweeping terms as if your opinion is the only one that matters, thats not what being a fan is all about. Whether Doctor Who and Star Trek crossover on screen or not doesn't really matter, the Tardis appears on the Enterprise in Strange New Worlds or the Enterprise appears over Unit HQ in London - adventure ensues... but if it does happen you bet I'll watch it and make my own judgements on it. It won't stop me from loving Star Trek though, it won't stop me from understanding that Star Trek isn't just about my enjoyment of it, its about a philosophy of hope and optimism and about taking creative risks, telling a story you believe is worth telling in today's world and ensuring that the story told speaks to an audience - what that audience takes away from that series or episode is up to them on a personal level - but as both Doctor Who and Star Trek have shown, audiences are still very much engaged in these stories and that over 60 years, they are still very much able to tell compelling stories that speak to an audience in contrasting and different ways. For me as a Star Trek fan, I don't think there is any limit to the type of story you can tell in that universe from Discovery which focused very much on relationships, to TNG which dealt with diplomacy, DS9 on war, Lower Decks on comedy, Prodigy on themes that affect young people, that are about figuring out your place in the world through the aspirational explorational lens. To the new shows yet to be seen; the indie clandestine romp of Section 31, the young, optimistic and hopeful Starfleet Academy and the just announced live-action comedy set on a federation pleasure planet. Someone else will have to speak for Doctor Who, but as for Star Trek, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fans around the world are invested in this universe and are being introduced to this universe and the philosophy it has continued to promote, I would assume that it is the same for Doctor Who too - these are good universes to be invested in.
Thanks for taking the time to watch and write such a length reply. It may be a generalisation for us to state how Alex Kurtzman isn't liked by Star Trek fans. Short-sighted though? No. Most of us on the panel are Star Trek fans too. In fact I hosted a Trek podcast for a good length of time and executive produce one now. These are arguments we hear now and again, in one form or another and they never, ever hold water. DSC has been a critical and commercial failure they kept on life support for YEARS. Whilst they desperately tried to make something else of the same attitude and mindset stick. Do you seriously think this is all said simply because it's not been to my/our subjective tastes? You can see this isn't a podcast/livestream that's put together thoughtlessly. None of it is true to "Star Trek". Which is good enough reason to come to the conclusion the IP needs saving; needs rescuing from the hands of the incompetent and the ideologically captured. All of those upcoming Trek shows sound TERRIBLE. And I believe deep down you know that as well as I do. Again though, we do appreciate you taking the time to listen and watch and comment. Dan
@@type40doctorwho Hi Dan. Appreciate your reply. Firstly, isn't generalising a statement as if it were fact short sighted of you? Where is the considered discourse? There's five of you on this livestream and while all five of you may share the same opinion about Alex Kurtzman, it doesn't make it correct. So, isn’t it your argument that is short-sighted, since you have no hard data to back up your statements. How are you measuring success? Factually, Star Trek since its original pilot had been both a critical and commercial failure. Star Trek found a dedicated audience when it was sold as a failed TV series into syndication. From then on, the critical and commercial success of Star Trek has been steady, but to suggest that Star Trek needs ‘saving’ at the point Discovery came about? It’s not factually correct. When stacking it up against previous Star Trek productions, Discovery has been successful in several ways, including being the most in-demand series on Paramount+ during the streamers launch in 2021 and remaining in the top 10 streaming charts throughout 2024. Despite being cancelled due to Paramount cutting costs, the show’s rising production costs and yes, the diminishing viewership (it’s a fact of all TV shows that audiences eventually decline), Star Trek: Discovery was a critical success. The show has been consistently praised for its innovative storytelling, visual effects, and diverse cast. It has revitalised the Star Trek franchise, which on TV had been dormant since 2005. Crucially though, had Star Trek: Discovery not worked both critically and commercially, then we would not have seen the number of new Star Trek productions being put into development. It has turned Star Trek into a viable TV franchise once more with each new show being just, if not more, successful. I don’t doubt your enthusiasm for both Trek and Who but you clearly haven’t spent enough time or thought on the content you are putting out, nor are you clearly defining what is factually correct vs your own personal opinions on the state of Star Trek, and this is where I take issue with content like this - you give your opinion(s) as if it were fact. You clam that ‘none of it is true to Star Trek’ - I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I am assuming you mean that none of the new Star Trek productions have been true to Star Trek and therefore the IP needs saving from the evil clutches of those who don’t understand it. What does this mean? Both critically and commercially Star Trek does not need saving because of the factual reasons mentioned above. If you mean creatively saving - as in the people making the show(s) don’t understand how to be true to Star Trek, then that is a subjective and personal opinion that still doesn’t validate your statement that Star Trek needs ‘saving’ - saving from creativity? Imagination? Someone’s idea of what Star Trek is to them? If we go by your logic in that Star Trek needs saving now, then Star Trek has always needed saving. Saving from NBC who cancelled it in 1969 and sold it into syndication which spawned the franchise we know today, saving from Gene Roddenberry in 1979 when he reinvented Star Trek and delivered a highly cerebral Star Trek movie that didn’t stay “true” to the original series, or how about in 1987 when he reinvented Star Trek entirely with The Next Generation without Kirk, Spock or Bones, or what about saving Star Trek from Nicholas Meyer who reinvented Star Trek to be more militaristic in its tone with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Oh and what about saving Star Trek from Michael Pillar and Rick Berman who ditched the ship in favour of a space station? Or saving it from Rick Berman and Branon Braga who decided on a prequel show that shared nothing in common with the 60s original series… I am of course being facetious. The point I am trying to make is that if you think Star Trek needs saving because of Alex Kurtzman, then by following that logic through, Star Trek has always needed saving throughout its history from someone, including its own creator, simply for wanting to tell a new story in a different way. While you and I are more than welcome to our own opinions on what we like or dislike about Star Trek, what we think works or doesn't work as Star Trek, neither of us can claim that just because we don’t like someone else’s take on Star Trek, be that Gene Roddenberry, Nicholas Meyer, Rick Berman or Alex Kurtzman, Star Trek somehow needs ‘saving’.
Great show again everyone. I think RTD has all but confirmed he has no intention of steering the ship in the right direction. With him at the helm the show will die. The idiology he spouts is like a religious calling and I can't see him changing, even if others above him aren't on board any longer. He should be sacked.
RTD hasn't really said anything. And tbf, even if he did? It's unlikely to be anything approaching the truth. There IS trouble at mill. Trust me. They know something has to change, but they'll do everything they can to make it sound deliberate and organic.
@@type40doctorwho took me a while to reply. The pnly way to save it is to retcon Whittaker and Gatwa, a Matrix nightmare for instance, restart it with a different Capaldi regeneration like the Hurt/Ecclestone one and get rid of Davies and his fellow producers forever. I've been a fan since 1980, my dad since the very first episode in 63. Neither of us will ever watch it again unless something is done to get rid of the trash of the past few years
I will make the Christmas episode my last one , i will not add to there viewing figures , i will then watch you guys and then decide whether it is worth watching because i refuse to continue to watch this garbage.
