>>591
Not sure if trolling, or a fucking moron.

>>592

Old Who is better than old Trek. Better stories, more nods to actual science, more interesting characters and aliens. Most Star Trek episodes are nonsense.

Also, there's much more Who than Trek, and new Who is newer than new Trek. New Who isn't everyones cup of tea. Post TNG trek is good to great, but often unintentionally daft and inconsistently good. I speak as a long time Trek fan, much more recent Who fan.

Dr Who was, in words that I can't find alternatives for, the most awkward and dumb shit I've ever seen. I watched one of the Weeping Angles episodes and some other one. The only thought that ran through my brain over and over was "the fuck is wrong with you Britain?".

Season 1 and 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation were horrible also, and I imagine where most the negative stereotpes of the show come from. Season 3 onwards however had some really good moments, especially the Data and Q episodes; I enjoyed it all quite a bit. I've never been able to do anything else Star Trek besides 3+ TNG though, the characters of all the other series just aren't as engaging and the stories just not as interesting as what TNG managed to accomplish. The Original Series earns some respect for laying down the foundations of hard scifi in television I guess, but as a show of it's own accord I thought it was crap.

I also think Stargate and it's spin-offs were rather meh too. To really get down to it, most these serialized 6+ season run-on shows all kinda suck in some form or another. World could use more Fireflys and BSGs.

Dr. Who tries too hard not to be scientific. As a show it's good, but there are too many deus ex machinas because they never bother to explain the rules.

I've only seen a few episodes of Star Trek, so I can't really say which is better, but I'm sure there are better science fiction shows than Dr. Who. Maybe I'm just spoiled from growing up reading the greats of science fiction.

>>601

Old Who is the opposite. It's all about the science, and the Doctor usually defeats his enemies by building something technological or outsmarting someone. Also #3 would beat people up a lot. New Who needs more science, and less nonsense.

Star Trek has some science episodes, but oftentimes the science is off by quite a wide margin, and a lot of it is simply nonsense. Star Trek (like New Who, i suppose) is science fantasy, not science fiction. Old Trek often has terrible plot as well.

>>601
>Dr. Who tries too hard not to be scientific. As a show it's good, but there are too many deus ex machinas because they never bother to explain the rules.
This.

Star Trek got better over the years as the budget has increased. TOS was good for it's day, but is rather shaky by modern standards. TNG got it pretty much right. DS9 was trying too hard to be like Babylon 5. Fortunately it was canned before it started to get boring, unlike Babylon 5, which just turned into a soap opera and pushed the science into the background altogether. Voyager was pretty much a reboot of TOS for the nineties. Less politics, more "a rift in the space/time continuum has fucked things up, how do we fix it?" Enterprise promised more realism, but was unfortunately killed in its prime.

This show managed to explore pretty much all the good sciency science fiction tropes while remaining spectacularly entertaining.

>>606 this man speaks truth

>>606
This is spot-on.

Also, I would like to say that post-Tennent has been pretty crap so far, much like post-TNG, but not to the same extent of bad.

>>606
CHEERS. Have all 8 seasons of Red Dwarf. Still one of my faves.

>>661

Where have you been, smeghead? There's ten now...

And it fell off the map after 6, but still beats ST or DW.

>>665
>exclusively on Dave
Who gives a TV network a name like "Dave?" That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard why am I laughing so hard.

>>670 I'm Dave and I approve this network !

>>670
someone who wants people to feel like their corporation is a close personal friend, at least until such a time as they notice they've started feeling that way. This is standard fucked-up mainstream-business shit. "drink coke and your shitty friends will finally show up when you ask, the sun will come out and bunnies will fly out of your ass, because coke loves you" This is the shocking truth.

SAGE has been used.

I'm a Brit and I've been a Doctor Who fan since Primary, but that's a load of shite.
Doctor who is better in so far as the quality is consistant, give or take for the odd episode or two per season that are let downs. However, Star Trek definetly has the superior high points across the board, worse lows too.

>>604
I'd argue about DS9 because that is overall my favourite Star Trek for the sheer consistancy in it's cast and story, but I'm completely with you on Enterprise. I think that it was just too different for the die hard fans to stomach.

Dan Dare is the best.

>>606
I see things differently and must disagree. Rather than write a page or two on it, I'll just say that 90% of the jokes are comprised of Lister's a slob/eats curry, Rimmer is delusional/cowardly, Cat is an asshole, everyone is stupid. Put those in a scifi situation and you can easily guess every joke. and I would have to add that they don't "explore" tropes as it's more like they just sort of poke at them with a stick from a few feet back (further limited by short episode time). Even if it was enjoyable for its time it was not for me, having started it up recently and gotten through 5 serieseseses so far.

But between Star Trek and Who, I'd have to go with Star Trek. Dr. Who's universe seems to be centered almost entirely around England and that bloody screwdriver doing everything and anything the writers want just to save effort/face. At least Star Trek has some rules to the universe that you don't have to watch a decade of TV to get. Although Voyager was terrible. Why did people keep talking to each other at kissing distance?
Anyway, I'm with >>601. I don't mean to insult and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Also, I didn't mean to sound angry. It just seems that way because of text limitations