Blimey, your argument is all over the place here.

Yes, the American TV series of the 1960s used North American actors, but they made the effort to cast an African-American woman as the comms officer, a Japanese-American who'd been interred during WWII as the helmsman, and the son of Russian immigrants as the navigator. Never mind having a character that looked like Satan. Hardly the all-American line-up you'd expect of the period.

Remind me - how many planets does the Enterprise invade to bring them into the Federation? In fact, don't they have some sort of regulation about interference?

The Enterprise's mission of exploration-for-exploration's-sake is the antithesis of (your perception of) American foreign policy.

The character of Eddington was a traitor and a terrorist, if from noble motives, so he'd be unlikely to agree with Federation philosophy.

As for the German figures, if "The Original Series was the most blatant with it", how can the film be "the first to not even try to tone it down"? In fact, why would the franchise be popular in Germany at all, if its very origin was so loathsomely 'American'? As it is Germany was by far the best non-English-speaking market for the film.

Doctor Who is a BRITISH SHOW, it's a legendary show, you really want to them to take that away from us? You really want the Doctor to start calling the Daleks "Douchebags" and "Faggots" while drinking a bottle o' Bud? NO.THANK.YOU.

No, I'd much rather the British version stuck with him calling them 'gits' and drinking ale out a dimpled pint glass, like he always has.

Yes, my thoughts are scattered. Doesn't make me any less right though.

There are black women in America, aren't there? Also Japanese-Americans and the children of immigrants? Russians being particularly common in the 60s? It was the American idea of diversity. If it'd been a British show there'd have been an Pakistani instead of a Japanese-American, a West-Indian woman rather than an African one. The tone would've been different too. TOS was optimistic in its exploration and the Federation was climbing high. A British version would've been darker, more cynical, the Federation would've been in decline, over population a concern. Ideas common in British sci-fi of the time. (see Judge Dredd for an example)

How many states did the USA conquer? None directly. It turned the people into Americans and had them request statehood. (see Texas for the best example)

Of course Eddington didn't agree with Federation policy! The point is the writers were acknowledging what the Federation is.

Every other week the Enterprise arrived at a planet that was living the 'wrong' way. Kirk would convince some woman to abandon her peoples ways with a kiss and set the planet on the right path - the American Way. They were exploring, yeah, but mainly to fulfil the Manifest Destiny. The Manifest Destiny being Gods mission for the American people. God being the thing that separated Americans from those no good atheist Commies.

Germany may have been the biggest non-English speaking market but it was way down compared to the previous Trek movies. Use the same source to check. Germany even out grossed the UK every other time.

Funnily enough, from a Moffat-written episode...

At around 4:10

Florida at least was taken by force.


Well, that certainly wasn't embodied in Star Trek... quite the contrary, the original series generally reflecting Roddenberry's atheism. Almost every time the aliens had some sort of god it was really a machine or computer that was enslaving them, and Kirk had to destroy it and teach them to live on their own, whilst creatively justifying his violations of the Prime Directive. That must have actually been a bit edgy for the US bible belt at the time.

I would not want an American version of Who for one simple reason. Assuming it was produced by an American, then he or she would inevitably want to "Americanise" it in some shape or form. The whole beauty of Doctor Who is it's Britishness. I quite enjoyed the McGann movie but it was just "different" enough to shout AMERICAN MARKET (I know it was filmed in Canada but it was meant to be in America) The same aplied to the recent Torchwood series. Torchwood was a series I loved, even the silly early episodes, but then came Miracle Day. Interesting concept but too Americanised. It lost that little bit of Britishness that marked it out as being unique. In case anyone thinks I'm anti Amrican Sci Fi I'm not. I loved Star Trek in all it's forms, I just wouldn't want my favourite show to be spoiled. If there had to be American money involved then why not just set and film a couple of stories in America rather than do an American version

For somebody with a Trek-related username, you do seem to have quite the hate on for the show's ideology. Can I recommend Blake's 7 as more your cup of tea?

I'm not saying that all your facts are wrong, but the ones that are right are irrelevant to your argument.

Yes, all these were considerable populations in America. But they weren't on the telly until Trek. Martin Luther King asked Nichelle Nichols to stay in the show because she was such an important role-model.

Dredd's from over a decade later, and a spoof of gung-ho American action films.

America actually bought or conquered most of the states. See the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession.

So you've decided to take one line, out of the hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Star Trek in existence, as the bit where the writers say "Actually, this is what we really think"? Why, apart from it fitting with your prejudices?

Can you name an episode with anything approaching the plot you describe? If it's really fifty per cent of them, please don't bother with more than five examples.

And by the German box office being 'way down', do you mean '50% up'? It did edge the UK for Nemesis, but I checked for any previous figures before I posted the link, and that's the only detailed breakdown so I don't know where you're getting 'every other time' from.

Man, it's tiring enough being right about a US Who being a good idea, without having to also counter the weirdest interpretation of Trek I've heard.

Both the examples you mention fall somewhat uncomfortably between being British and being American.

An all-American version wouldn't have that disconnect.

Britain likes Doctor Who because of its British sensibility with which we can identify. America likes it as a British novelty. Why shouldn't they get a version they can properly identify with?

But they didn't force Florida to become a state though. They flooded it with Americans while 'convincing' as many natives as possible to become good law abiding Christians. As soon as they were the majority in Florida they requested to join the USA as a state. I know that's a very weak distinction, but it was enough for supporters of American expansion to to tell themselves they weren't conquerors.

You're quite right that Trek is very atheist. But they were never brave enough to say it until TNG. And for that reason I have the feeling the Bible Belt saw Kirk dethroning those false gods as confirmation of the righteous of Christianity. If you didn't know about Roddenberry's own atheism it's a valid opinion to hold.

I agree - Miracle Day/the McGann Movie didn't have any obvious bits you could point to and say 'that was for the American market' but they were still both rubbish. The problem was that the injection of money into the production process seems to force writers into indulgent bouts of spectacle that loosen the plot and allow your attention to wander.

The Blessing (about which btw a freudian critic would have a great deal to say) and the families were just not any kind of focal point for menace in the way that the 456 was. Where was the pace in Miracle Day? The plot was being stretched out by stupid, gratuitous shots of people still not dying.

Eric Roberts is (to quote Hitler) a douchebag and absolutely the wrong man to play the Master.

And the Tardis in that movie was like a nightmare you might have about the Tardis.

As the Moff said, rather than the action happening in a cave or a quarry, 3/4 of the way into the film he was at a massive cocktail party.

The virtue of the current (and vintage) series is that the writers are forced to make the show plot driven by cost constraints. Best episodes post-2005 in my opinion have been Blink, The Doctor's Wife and The Girl Who Waited. You don't need millions to make this show - it's a show about ideas that - at its best - grabs you by the brain and twists it for 42 minutes on a Saturday evening. A movie is a reboot of the concept by definition.

And a US Who? That the format has not been exploited to the point of exhaustion since the eighties is a temporary condition. You all seem to think that it would be impossible to get sick of the Doctor. You are wrong. Everything is subject to diminishing returns. By all means have a 50th blow out, but keep it clever and taut. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Doctor is actually immortal. He can die if you don't give him the chance to regenerate.

Oh - and the Star Trek reboot - DIDNAE F***IN HAPPEN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjckbAqUwT0

I have no hate for Trek.*

All the episodes with a planet controlled by a computer involve Kirk forcing to the people to lead their lives according to his ways, example: The Apple.

It's weird to say the American writers of an American series were influenced by American culture?

*Except Voyager and Enterprise.

IIRC he would sometimes even promise to send teams of Federation 'specialists' to guide them into a new way of life. That's extremely American.

The Apple? The one where the population get to do nothing except feed a giant computer, which Kirk blows up so they can live their own lives, and then leaves?

It's not weird to say the American writers of an American series were influenced by American culture, but you do have to provide a workable example.

I think an American version of Doctor Who would be pure garbage, but I'd have no problem with them co-funding it. As long as it remained a BBC Wales production and didn't change just to please the co-funders (i.e. No location moves, No unnecessary American characters, No Stereotypes on either side of the Atlantic). I would make sure that British people are still in charge and they make up 75+% of the writing team. I think Doctor Who could benefit from having a larger budget per episode, but it would mean (depending on the partner - I think we're all praying Starz leave and never return) that we lost a few mins per episode.

Ah, Limmy. The answer to the question 'What would happen if you made a sketch show out of those mildly amusing thoughts you have every day but don't tell anybody about because they don't seem worth it?'

His arguement only has three problems:

a) None of the history of the Star Trek universe ever really happened anyway.
b) The old episodes still exist. You can still watch them. Same with your memories connected to Trek. They haven't been wiped out.
c) If the old time-line didn't still exist, where does Old Spock come from?

Right - I'm not 100% with Limmy's analysis, but I'm with him in spirit.

a) None of the history of the Star Trek universe ever really happened anyway. - Despite being right this is a facetious and hurtful point.

b) The old episodes still exist. You can still watch them. Same with your memories connected to Trek. They haven't been wiped out. - Yes but they no longer have any bearing on the existing franchise. When Batman: Year One came along, it changed the tone but honoured the essentials of the mythos. The Trek movie actually changed the natures of most of the characters and the mission. I have a horrible feeling that the coming sequels will see the Enterprise on a war footing more often than not.

c) If the old time-line didn't still exist, where does Old Spock come from? - Vulcan.

The Star Trek Movie seemed to me to be a massive finger stuck in the face of Trekkies and essentially said - 'This version of Star Trek won't do continuity with the old version because it's too geeky and peaceful. We're gonna blow things up and look like catwalk models while we do it!' Thus reducing one of the high points of shared modern culture to... well... the A Team in space.

PS: I genuinely hope I'm wrong about this.

a) Facetious, yes. But hurtful?

b) When Batman (1989) came along, it made Jack Napier the Waynes' killer and had a Batman that didn't seem to mind killing. This didn't affect any previous interpretations of the character.

c) Yes, but a Vulcan that still existed in the 24th century. If his timeline doesn't exist any more, neither should he.

As a Trekkie of the level 'Went to the conventions, but don't own a uniform' I thought the film was a great re-interpretation of the franchise, with a clever in-universe reason for things being different. Trek on the TV had got into just as much of a rut as Who did towards the end of its run. (I love the Seventh Doctor, but even I agree the show needed a rest.)

But then, I am the guy arguing that a US version of Who would be a great idea, so I realise my views may not be typical.

Hurtful because I want to believe!

I thought it signalled an unfortunate change in direction towards an action/character-driven narrative. Batman changed plot details and I wouldn't mind them doing that with Trek...

In the interest of disclosure: I'm a Trekkie on the scale of TOS and TNG are never really far from my mind. Didn't really care for any of the films (obviously excepting TWoK). Well acquainted with Voyager and DS9 and thereafter lost the will to carry on. I agree that the series were losing their impetus, but that didn't necessitate the blowing up of Vulcan.

Essentially what the whole argument (DW and Trek reinterpretation/reboot) is about is whether by reinterpreting them with larger budgets you are just trading in plot for spectacle. Bond and Batman films have done the opposite and come out healthier as a result. I hoped that was what would happen with Star Trek. I haven't been so disappointed since the Phantom Menace.

DW doesn't need more spectacle anyway, so what can American finance and writing actually add to it? Just more of it? In which case, the anticipation and teasing which goes on most of the time (fuelling this entire forum) would dissipate.

The McGann movie demonstrates why the US could never make the show, they want the Doctor to be British. The result was some American view of what being British is, as authentic as a British pub at Disneyland.

The new versions of Bond, Batman (and, sorry, Star Trek as well) have all re-invigorated long-standing franchises, whether in box office or critical acclaim. Why assume a similar Who treatment would be bad?

American writing and finance can bring a American perspective to the concept, which I think would be interesting.

I also don't think that a different version of Who would dilute interest, any more that Torchwood or The Sarah Jane Adventures did.

As I apparently never (get to) tire of saying:
[LIST][*]The Americans would not be trying to make the British version of Doctor Who.

[*]They would be making their own, separate, American version of Doctor Who.

[*]The TV Movie and Miracle Day are therefore not remotely the same thing.[/LIST]

I'm unclear as to how the American DW would work.

Would it replace the British version? Or run in parallel with it?

Would the same actor play the Doctor, or would there be 2 versions of the Doctor? How could that work?

Very interesting discussion, btw.

You've not convinced me yet, Lazlo, but it's emotional rather than logical with me.

I'm half sold on this for one reason --the multitude of writers that an American version could bring to things.

People can talk about Torchwood USA being dire but that was still RTD.

I think our recent Who has been somewhat blighted by the lack of ideas from messrs Moffat and RTD and a big writing staff could really knock the ball out of the park on this one.

And americanisation and shooting things --folk seem to have forgotten the Doctor and River back to back shooting down the Silents (with his sonic screwdriver no less !!!)

Yeah bring it on and then a couple of crossovers with Trek and SG ( Hey the Doctor could go back in time and right things in the Trek timeline so we get the proper Kirk and Spock back and not this glossy Abrams drivel )