"Doctor Who" is simply one of the greatest works of science fiction ever to appear on television. The only thing holding it short of absolute, unmitigated greatness is its amazing longevity (26 seasons) which ensured that there would be a good number of lousy episodes.
The American version of this show is "Star Trek", of which I'm also a fan. The differences between the two series might be used as a basis of contrasting the two nations, but I'll only contrast the shows because it's much simpler:
1) "Star Trek" has an ensemble cast, each of whom are designed to appeal to different demographics. "Doctor Who" has one regular character, the Doctor. To be fair, the Doctor has been played by ten different actors so far, each to a different effect.
2) The heroes of "Star Trek" -- and while we're at it, the average US sf series -- represent a quasi-military organization tasked with keeping the peace throughout the galaxy, exploring, and righting wrongs. The Doctor doesn't follow anyone's orders, and largely makes it up as he goes along. To be honest, he's a bit of an anarchist at times, and at the very least usually totally anti-authoritarian.
c) The Enterprise is a huge starship with a crew of hundreds, equipped with futuristic technology and run sometimes like a battleship, sometimes like a hot rod. The TARDIS is an antique time machine/spaceship in the shape of an antique British police telephone box.
5) The Federation are the good guys. We like the Federation; they represent everything that is good and worth preserving about humanity. On the other hand: the Time Lords. Corrupt, petty, self-serving, bureaucratic. The Doctor ran off with the TARDIS to get away from them.
Which is not to say that one show is inherently superior to the other. I like them both. But, as an American, "Doctor Who" is a refreshing change of pace from the standard formula of American television. The hero questions authority at every turn; he doesn't need a badge or a gun to back up his sense of morality; he is usually neither handsome nor physically strong, and there's barely a hint of sexuality. He's a champion of the oppressed and the underdog, totally free of political or nationalistic concerns.
He may have had a good understanding of Right and Wrong, but what he lacked was a budget. Luckily, the BBC of old did not care, and they continued to produce the series so long as it had excellent writing and acting, which it did for the majority of its run. Each of the actors playing the Doctor has his strengths: my favorites are Patrick Troughton and Sylvester McCoy. Lack of funds ironically meant that there was no limit to what they could do: they knew it would look silly regardless, so they said to hell with it and threw everything they had up onto the screen. The result is colorful and imaginative and often very exciting. Say what you will about the show, it was never drab.
The American version of this show is "Star Trek", of which I'm also a fan. The differences between the two series might be used as a basis of contrasting the two nations, but I'll only contrast the shows because it's much simpler:
1) "Star Trek" has an ensemble cast, each of whom are designed to appeal to different demographics. "Doctor Who" has one regular character, the Doctor. To be fair, the Doctor has been played by ten different actors so far, each to a different effect.
2) The heroes of "Star Trek" -- and while we're at it, the average US sf series -- represent a quasi-military organization tasked with keeping the peace throughout the galaxy, exploring, and righting wrongs. The Doctor doesn't follow anyone's orders, and largely makes it up as he goes along. To be honest, he's a bit of an anarchist at times, and at the very least usually totally anti-authoritarian.
c) The Enterprise is a huge starship with a crew of hundreds, equipped with futuristic technology and run sometimes like a battleship, sometimes like a hot rod. The TARDIS is an antique time machine/spaceship in the shape of an antique British police telephone box.
5) The Federation are the good guys. We like the Federation; they represent everything that is good and worth preserving about humanity. On the other hand: the Time Lords. Corrupt, petty, self-serving, bureaucratic. The Doctor ran off with the TARDIS to get away from them.
Which is not to say that one show is inherently superior to the other. I like them both. But, as an American, "Doctor Who" is a refreshing change of pace from the standard formula of American television. The hero questions authority at every turn; he doesn't need a badge or a gun to back up his sense of morality; he is usually neither handsome nor physically strong, and there's barely a hint of sexuality. He's a champion of the oppressed and the underdog, totally free of political or nationalistic concerns.
He may have had a good understanding of Right and Wrong, but what he lacked was a budget. Luckily, the BBC of old did not care, and they continued to produce the series so long as it had excellent writing and acting, which it did for the majority of its run. Each of the actors playing the Doctor has his strengths: my favorites are Patrick Troughton and Sylvester McCoy. Lack of funds ironically meant that there was no limit to what they could do: they knew it would look silly regardless, so they said to hell with it and threw everything they had up onto the screen. The result is colorful and imaginative and often very exciting. Say what you will about the show, it was never drab.