Amazon.com Widgets
  • While I love them both, Doctor Who takes the cake.

    Is there an in between option?

    I love them both, but Doctor Who is simply more interesting. They do more in it, and it seems like less of a mystery and more... Action. There isn't some wise, flawless guy in command, and there are more questionable decisions. That's why I prefer Doctor Who.

  • Chaos vs. Order

    I love both series, but when it comes down to, I would jump at the chance at being The Doctor's companion, but would balk at being drafted into Star Fleet. The Doctor is all about passion and love and gentleness and madness and adventure. In short, it is about chaos. Star Trek on the other hand is about rules and order and discipline and reason, and while an argument is always made for the id, the superego usually has the upper hand.

  • Doctor Who is more engaging

    While I do enjoy Star Trek, I think that Doctor Who is more versatile and enjoyable. Maybe it's due to its sheer longevity, but I think that Doctor Who has such a huge range of entertaining adventures. The thrill of the TARDIS being able to turning up literally anywhere has always been a magical aspect of the programme, and a key part of its appeal.

  • Doctor Who is more engaging

    While I do enjoy Star Trek, I think that Doctor Who is more versatile and enjoyable. Maybe it's due to its sheer longevity, but I think that Doctor Who has such a huge range of entertaining adventures. The thrill of the TARDIS being able to turning up literally anywhere has always been a magical aspect of the programme, and a key part of its appeal.

  • Doctor Who is the best

    Doctor Who continues to change which means that when something gets old it changes it gets better and better. Each incarnation of the doctor attracts to different people, while some people like one incarnation others like another. The fact is that doctor who has stood the tests of time and continues to be amazing 53 years after it started.

  • Doctor Who has it all

    The character of the Doctor is better than any of the Star Trek characters, and the companions usually have more development than most of the Star Trek crew members, who are oftentimes just there to spout out technobabble. It's also funny, which Star Trek occasionally is but it's usually very serious, which works when it has something interesting to say but oftentimes it doesn't. That isn't to say Doctor Who can't be serious as well, of course. Then, of course, the stories have much greater variety to them. Star Trek will occasionally do something out of the box, but you generally know what the tone of any given episode will be, whereas Doctor Who is constantly unpredictable, while still remaining recognizably itself.

  • The title has to go to Doctor Who.

    Both keep me interested. But the bottom line is, is that Doctor Who always had a better approach to space and traveling then Star Trek because basically in Star Trek the ships are basically just ships that could be basically put on the ground on a planet but instead are just put in space. In Doctor Who there always seems to be a variety with each episode and the writers are able to make it always interesting and enticing. However, with Star Trek the formula can get a bit stale after a while, while Doctor Who's episode never get boring even when watching 5 or 6 episodes continuously.

  • Although I love both I prefer doctor who

    These are the reasons for my choice:

    A) It has a lot of variation. Although trek has the same amount of variation, it is more likely for who to have different styles. Doctor who ranges from the incredibly childish Fear her to the downright dark Damaged Goods.

    B) Nothing is permanent. People come, people go, if you don't like one doctor or companion it is not as big a deal.

    P.S A lot of people who are saying star trek are being aggressive about it in a strange way. Please stop it.

  • Although I love both I prefer doctor who

    These are the reasons for my choice:

    A) It has a lot of variation. Although trek has the same amount of variation, it is more likely for who to have different styles. Doctor who ranges from the incredibly childish Fear her to the downright dark Damaged Goods.

    B) Nothing is permanent. People come, people go, if you don't like one doctor or companion it is not as big a deal.

    P.S A lot of people who are saying star trek are being aggressive about it in a strange way. Please stop it.

  • It has more villians

    It has loads of recurring villians like the daleks the cyberman and davros and the master and the weeping angels and sontarons and silurians and sea devils and slitheen and many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many more

  • Star Trek's the finest Sci-fi put on screen both on TV and Film

    Star Trek, has better writing, better story, better overall characters and better acting. I could compare least 6 different version of Doctor Who to Star Trek but since TOS is my favorite Star Trek I will compare the two, in Star Trek there are least 3 main character Kirk, Spock and Dr. Leonard McCoy. In Doctor Who there is just one main character The Doctor. The supporting cast in Star Trek has better staying power than each individual companion of the Doctor who range from good to very bad. Star Trek has also better approach to technology, Star Ships. Just case in point Star Trek has influenced technological inventions unlike Doctor Who which has contributed next to nothing in this sense. Now the for the aliens, I have never been able to take any of the main alien races that seriously, Daleks and Cybermens seems tad unrealistic in my opinions to work as something pussible. While Klingons and Borg sound tad more serious as villainous alien races. Far as friendly Alien races goes Vulcan seems more easy quantify what they are supposed to stand for, while the Time Lords/Ladies you basically have no idea. Since Vulcans seems to have been explored well behind Mr Spock so you get good sense of what Vulcans are While Time Lords are rarely explored behind The Doctor himself. So there is next to impossible to explore or understand ideology of Time Lords, behind whatever Ideology The Doctor dash up each time when the situations call for while Vulcan Ideology usually remains the same. Now some would argue that Doctor Who had better staying Power on TV than ST:TOS which is funny as we could consider each individual Doctor it own sub-series, yet none of them lasted as long as Star Trek TOS.

  • Not In My Opinion

    I really love (love) both of them, but if they were both on (and both were on their very best episode or on of their best), Trek wins. I just find it more fun and more interesting, despite how awesome Doctor Who is. But that's just me I guess I don't know.

  • Star trek is better than doctor who

    Doctor who 1963-1980s sucks.The aliens are like costume and more like a kid show.Star trek 1966 is better because the episodes are exciting and more like wow.Most of doctor who's episode are boring and can make me fall asleep yeah.Star trek for the win!!!Yeah yahoo oh yeah rock on! Yes

  • Couldn't get into Doctor Who

    My whole family likes to watch Dr Who but I couldn't share their passion for it. I do like some episodes like Genesis of the Daleks and the Weeping Angles but not enough to commit to watching it regularly.

    My main beef with Dr Who is that the Doctor just pulls things out of his ass too often. In almost every episode the Doctor gets into terrible peril only to wave his magic wand and reveal some knowledge that gets him out of danger. This is sloppy writing and it really impacts my enjoyment of the show.

  • Star trek was successful enough to spawn 13 films. Doctor who spawned one disappointing film.

    Yeah, some of the films were terrible, some of them were great, but the point is that there was a greater demand for trek. Producers saw the franchise as a moneymaker specifically because of how successful the television series' had been. Also, a lot of the arguments in favor of Who specifically state how the changes to the show are what keep it interesting, but a lot can be said for consistency. The Trek film First Contact establishes a plot device that is explored in Enterprise, while another episode of ENT explains a Klingon genetic issue to retroactively explain events in TOS. Even the rebooted film series clearly follows the original continuity. Meanwhile, in Who, London is constantly being invaded by aliens, but history is constantly being rewritten by the doctor and his companions so the invasions never happened and you never know whether these daleks are the same as those other daleks from that other episode. To me, this is basically the same approach as the "it was all just a dream" approach: lazy and uninteresting. The overarching plot devices seem silly as hell. I remember watching the "bad wolf" season finale and thinking "wow, this bad wolf thing seems really forced." I felt the same way about the "Doctor Donna" and "River song" devices as well, and I was so annoyed by the shows efforts to shove down our throats that the Doctor was so in love with Rose. It's the same impression I got when a pushy car salesman told me that I should buy from him because he wasn't pushy. What you're telling me and what I'm seeing are two different things. The plot's insistence on establishing the love between these two was already too much in the seasons that featured Rose, but then they just kept pushing it even in the seasons that followed, which really made the episodes that featured Martha seem extra cheap. I obviously like Doctor Who enough to follow it throughout all this, but Star Trek has never irritated or frustrated me in these ways. The overarching plot devices in Trek take time to evolve naturally, and the explanations for events are satisfying, even when they rely heavily on technobabble. Doctor who is fun, but Star Trek is definitely more intelligent, which makes for better entertainment in my opinion.

  • Star Trek is deeper

    While I LOVE Doctor Who, I must say that Star Trek is better. While they both explore human nature and our funny little heads (that most people have), Star Trek goes deeper than Doctor Who. Star Trek is more realistic in technology and in psychology. And as of Vulcans VS Time Lords? I must say Vulcans (they are more civilised), but the ultimate alien would be a half Vulcan- half Time Lord :-D

  • Very long, rambling, post-all-nighter rant.

    Firstly, some argue that the characters are better in Doctor Who. I disagree. I have always liked Doctor Who, but I never became emotionally attached to the characters in Doctor Who the way I did to the characters in Star Trek. Think of Spock- Doctor Who doesn't have any character with such depth, except for the Doctor himself, who is very difficult to connect to because he is so far above his human companions. The larger ensemble cast is much more enjoyable to watch than the Doctor and his two or one companions, with many different kinds of relationships on screen at once.
    Secondly, above, somebody has made the point that the Doctor can 'defeat trillions of Daleks with just the help of his companions while in Star Trek, a whole lot enterprise is needed to defeat one enemy'. Putting aside questionable grammar, this is called being realistic. This is less true for Classic Who, but in reboot Doctor Who a lot of this involves a power of love ending mixed with pseudoscience. I am certainly not denying that there is pseudoscience in Star Trek, but at least in Star Trek they solve the problem with a practical, technical solution. In Star Trek, Starfleet is a well-run, organised military organisation. The crew got to their high positions by moving up through the ranks, from Ensign to Admiral, by WORKING for it. By doing what they're told to do by Starfleet, because that is the best way for a starship to actually work. They don't have a sonic screwdriver, they have phasers and photon torpedos, because they actually need them.
    Star Trek is a larger universe. There are far more planets mentioned, more races that are actually called by name. Take two of the most famous, for example- Romulans and Klingons. Both have a well fleshed-out history and culture. Romulans and Vulcans can be compared to show both the good and bad sides of embracing and rejecting emotion. In TNG and DS9 we get a Klingon crewmember who is benevolent, despite the fact that Klingons have also been villains. This is far more subtle than the utterly evil Daleks, which feel only hatred and attempt to kill all other life forms, or the Cybermen, who are simply emotionless robots.
    I'm not arguing that 'Spock's Brain' is better than Doctor Who. Not at all. Doctor Who is a good show, and Star Trek also had some REALLY low points. And some that are nice enough, you just can't quite figure out why they exist at all. I used to be a Doctor Who fan, and I still am to a certain extent- but when I started watching TOS, I was immediately far more engaged than I'd ever been in Doctor Who.

  • Star Trek is way better

    They make piece and are awesome in Star Trek they teach lessons and always go by the code. In Star Trek they youse things that we can relate to can you relate to an old ugly telephone box? Star Trek fans can ask a Star Trek dislikeing Doctor who fan about Star Trek and they will not know anything about it.

  • I don't like either of them.

    They are both not really my cup of tea, but startrek is much much MUCH better, just because it is way easier to get into. I tried to watch Dr who, and I hated it. I tried to watch star trek, and thought. "yup. That could be cool. I should see more"

  • We go all out!!!!

    We Trekies are way to good for you fools. Doctor who is good, but not as good. Us Trekies are way more dedicated than you chumps with your sonic screwdrivers and celery and long scarves and tardisis. We explore while you mess with time. All in all, we are the better people. So suck it Doctor Poo.(LOL SON!!!!!!!!!!!!)


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.