I like that phrase! I’ll claim as well, as a huge fan of both franchises.
I won’t, however, try to compare and contrast the two. Happy to have them both in my world.
6 Likes
It’s very difficult to make a meaningful comparison between a series conceived in 1963, that was to be made weekly for most of the year on black and white 405 line videotape with the limitations of the UK unions of the time, that meant everything had to be completed within the space of one recording session, with one made three years later in the US studio system on colour film. The differences in production method (not to mention budget) meant that the writing would be influenced by production methods and would inevitably change the pace of what could be achieved. In a whole film production, you had the benefit of being able to edit more tightly and much more frequently. That’s just one of the reasons that 60s Trek has a more polished look and pace to 60s Who. That doesn’t mean that one is inherently better or worse than another, but it does explain why there are big differences in style.
There are good and bad stories in both series. The first episode of an Unearthly Child is superb, but then they had the luxury of more time to get the script right and two runs at the recording. The rest of the story is quite different, but it’s still watchable and, I find, enjoyable. But comparing the whole story with either of the alternate first Star Trek stories is a little unfair, not least because television was developing at some pace at the time and so three years in time then brought a lot more development than three years of TV, even now, with processing powers increasing and the whole streaming multiverse unfolding.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to like one more than the other or to like both in different ways. Each has its fair share of great stories and clunkers. But to weigh up one story against another, especially the opening parts is comparing apples with oranges. I like both. But they are very different.
8 Likes
Speaking generally, I agree it’s not a valid critique; but personally it is. I know I’m practically the lone Super Shipper on this forum lol, but my decision to join a fandom is contingent on whether I can find either (1) a ship or (2) someone attractive to fawn over. The fandoms I’ve been a part of in the past (or seen in periphery) have always had a large focus on shipping and expressing attraction towards the characters and/or people involved, so I found it incredibly jarring how most of the CW fandom doesn’t care for any of those aspects.
7 Likes
No, I enjoy the First Doctor’s characterization immensely!
7 Likes
I 
Babs and I ship her and Ian! I know I’m not the only one.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of shipping. It’s not something I’ve done much of in Doctor Who, but it’s definitely part of the appeal of many other shows for me! Whatever you love, it’s all good.
8 Likes
I sincerely doubt that. Superficially it may have been but as The Daleks in Colour proved, the main loss will be the subtle characterisation that is present in classic Doctor Who. The Daleks in Colour lost the gentle romance between Barbara and Ganatus and the characterisation of Antodus which lead to his tragic sacrifice in the caves.
I imagine a 45 minute cut down of An Unearthly Child would have lost the characterisation of the triangle of Za, Hur and Kal. I honestly believe not enough credit is given to either the writing or the acting involved in creating those characters. Whitaker threw away the original plan of grunting savages and replaced it with characters who speak poetically.
And this whole brilliant scene:
Those three episodes are so much more than the capture and escape from a cave received wisdom has told us they are and what, I imagine a 45 minute edit would reduce them too.
8 Likes
Oh and please don’t think I’m trying to take that away from you. It’s just something I don’t really get as a thing in the same way some people just don’t get why people cosplay or why people write fan fiction or why people build entire websites for tracking stories or why people sit on forums arguing about whether Trek is better than Who… 
And I’ve always thought Ian and Barbara were a couple as well as Polly and Ben, so I do mentally ship characters from time to time.
8 Likes
Also, a thought on camaraderie in the two shows. For me, it is better written and developed in Who for a clear reason. In Trek we are presented with a fully-formed crew who have histories and relationships with each other before the show starts. As a consequence we have to be told about those relationships and in many cases they are fully formed - such as Kirk and Bones. It just isn’t very engaging to be on the outside of existing relationships which, to my mind, to really go anywhere different across the episodes I’ve seen.
In Who, we have the privilege of watching how the relationships, trust and affection grow between the Doctor, Susan, Ian and Barbara across that first season. There is growth in the Doctor and Barbara in particular not just with each other but also in themselves. Susan grows into a young woman ready to start a new life on an alien planet. Vicki comes in and bonds with the Doctor in such a special way and, again, grows in confidence until she finally chooses to leave. Ian and Barbara are people torn between the joy of adventuring but the desire to return home to their normality and when the chance occurs, the excitement at the opportunity to regain their old lives is almost tangible. For all the criticism of The Chase recently, those final scenes - the Doctor being cross as a cover for his fear of them leaving, Ian and Barbara shouting goodbye into the sky after arriving back in London - work because of the skills of Hartnell, Hill and Russell in developing those characters over the last two years.
And yes, I’m aware there are existing relationships between the Doctor and Susan and Ian and Barbara that we have to be ‘told about’ in the first episode but I feel it is done with some adept scripting in that.
I love that people can enjoy both shows and, as I’ve said, I like TNG and thought Picard was superb. I’m not adverse to Trek at all, but it will never ever be as good as Doctor Who in my eyes and I do think early Doctor Who isn’t being given anywhere near enough credit for the characterisation of the regulars.
8 Likes
Personally I’m a big TOS fan and I almost certainly prefer it over 60’s Classic Who. Even when comparing it with the Third Doctor’s era, now in colour and at least appeared to have a higher budget, I still find it too slow paced quite often. At least if there’s a TOS episode you find dull it’s only 50 minutes to slog through, not two and a half hours.
On the other hand, I think An Unearthly Child is better than The Man Trap. It flows better and has a more interesting plot in my opinion. But that’s just one episode.
I found it much, much easier to get into TOS than Classic Who. That’s all I can really say on the matter. I didn’t even watch most of 60’s Who because I just found myself distracted and bored far too often.
9 Likes
Fellow dual Whovian-Trekkie citizen weighing in with my preference for 60s Doctor Who. While I appreciate and value how important TOS is, I just never clicked with it. I’m much more a 90s Trek fan and prefer TOS films over the show itself.
The constant objectification of women in Trek, particularly TOS, is hard to get through. Don’t get me wrong, classic who absolutely is sexist and the women tend to be written as less capable and more kidnappable than their male counterparts, but tend to have more character and agency than the far fewer named female characters in TOS. Another thing is the acting, the over the top stilted stage acting that many bring to TOS (especially Shatner) is a lot more awkward than the more natural dialogue in classic who, with mainly just the villains going Full Ham. I was genuinely surprised watching AUC for the first time and hearing Ian and Barbara having a Normal Conversation instead of the stilted and hammy dialogue I was used to in TOS. Again, not to say the acting in classic who has its moments, but it’s more tolerable than TOS.
Again, both absolutely have their merits and have to taken in the context of the time and how/where they were produced, but my personal preference is 60s Who.
6 Likes