Patrick Stewart To Guest Star On Doctor Who? [UPDATED] | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Patrick Stewart To Guest Star On Doctor Who? [UPDATED] October 5, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Rumor,Sci-Fi,TNG , trackback

Is Patrick Stewart (TNG’s Captain Picard) about the trade in the Enterprise for the Tardis? According to a report in the Brit tabloid The Daily Star, the actor has been offered a recurring role on Doctor Who, the hit British Sci Fi series. This report is not confirmed, but Stewart is currently appearing with Doctor Who star David Tennant in Hamlet.

 

According to the report in The Star, Stewart has been offered the role of a rival Time Lord called the ‘Meddling Monk,’ a character last seen on the series in 1966. The Star quotes a ”Star Trek insider’ (they probably meant a Doctor Who insider) saying “Patrick has been formally approached to star in Doctor Who and is very keen to do it.” The report notes that Stewart will take the role if his film commitments allow. However Stewart, does not appear to have any film commitments and besides doing voice work and commercials, his focus has been on the stage in recent years.

Although The Star is a dubious publication, Stewart has previously expressed interest in doing a spot on Doctor Who. A year ago we reported that the actor told North Scotland "I have been (a fan) actually yes, and deeply dismayed that I was never asked to be in it! I think it’s a terrific series." At the time he was also quoted as saying "I would love to be in Doctor Who. I am doing some RSC work with David Tennant next year so who knows? If we gel on stage we could on screen." Now a year later Stewart’s run with Tennant and Hamlet is a sold out hit that runs through to next January.

Tennant’s work with the RSC has actually cut into the Doctor Who schedule and so for 2009 there will only be four ‘specials’ instead of a regular season. These will begin shooting January, after Stewart and Tennant wrap up their work on Hamlet. Tennant is expected to return to the role for a full season to air in 2010. According to the Star report, the BBC is ‘so keen’ to get Stewart that they would save the character for him until the 2010 season if needed.

But, for now treat this as a very interesting rumor.


Stewart appearing with Tennant in Hamlet

 

UPDATE: More rumors?
Doctor Who site Planet Gallifrey reported on Patrick Stewart possibly playing The Meddling Monk a week ago and again today. One of these reports was picked up by io9. It is possible that The Daily Star repackaging these, or they may have their own sources. For now we will just have to wait.

UPDATE 2: Another Tabloid joins in
The UK’s Sun Tabloid is now reporting the same rumor and appear their own source, but have no other details.

 

Comments

1. BND - October 5, 2008

Why is Peter Townshend dressed in scrubs?
I suppose it be becuz he’s Doctor Who.

Arrrrr… it would be interesting ta’ see Stewart on Who… as a villainous Time Lord… but why is his TARDIS shaped like a a crate o’ Earl Grey?

Arrrrrr…

2. Beam me up - October 5, 2008

Wow, he must be desperate for work.

3. Alec - October 5, 2008

Each to his own, I suppose. But I find Dr Who low-budget, childish, and asinine. I don’t understand its popularity. I wouldn’t be surprised if Stewart were interested in a role in Dr Who, though. Remember when Ian McKellen (Gandalf) joined Coronation Street…

4. Craig - October 5, 2008

2.Why Pegg has done it but it’s the Star so I don’t trust it and they are only doing specials next year

5. Dom - October 5, 2008

Nu-Who = Russell T Davies’ over-hyped, overrated, garbage, self-indulgent vanity project. Rot in Hell!

Stewart should stick to theatre.

6. Craig - October 5, 2008

3. It also appeals to the same mainstream that XI is suposidly targeting

7. Energize - October 5, 2008

Dr. Who is mainstream? Really?

8. fred - October 5, 2008

how cool would that be stewart in another great sci-fi programe i just hope he wait till 2010 so davis has gone and moffatt can write something that would use his talents to there full

9. veritas1325 - October 5, 2008

Now, I know that everything Trek is sacrosanct and that, y’know, that also means that it’s the only decent science fiction in the history of the genre, but Doctor Who has been around nearly forever and continues to bring interesting, entertaining, and engaging characters and storylines all while doing it on a lesser budget. It’s a great show, and I think it would be very exciting to get Patrick Stewart on the program. Not only would it not be a desperate move, but a rather smart one Doctor Who is, afterall, a highly rated show in Great Brittain. Lord forbid it’s not a high dollar, high concept American show. No, Dave Tennett isn’t the greatest Doctor the show has ever had (Tom Baker remains the best) but he’s good in the role and the show is entertaining and fun.

10. Christopher L. Bennett - October 5, 2008

I recently read an online news item saying that Stewart might be doing an unspecified role that didn’t require prosthetic makeup; the article author speculated that the Meddling Monk was one possibility. Now the Star is “reporting” that he’s been offered the role of the Monk? I suspect they just read the same online article I did and misinterpreted/misrepresented the author’s speculation as a fact. Thus are rumors born.

11. Craig - October 5, 2008

It has had a Christmas Day special on BBC1 for 4 years. That in the UK is mainstream

12. Captain Robert April - October 5, 2008

He should play the new brigadier in command of UNIT. The scenes of Lethbridge-Stewart trying to explain the antics of the “unpaid, underappreciated scientific advisor” would be gold.

13. Captain Robert April - October 5, 2008

I say cast him as UNIT’s new commandant.

Imagine Lethbridge-Stewart trying to explain the antics of the “unpaid, unappreciated scientific advisor”….

14. Dierna - October 5, 2008

Patrick Stewart as a time lord??? So much for the doctor being the last one. *lol*

15. Izbot - October 5, 2008

It’s a British thing, I wouldn’t understand. But that’s okay. From what I’ve seen I’m not really missing anything.

16. Dom - October 5, 2008

Unfortunately, most of the UK ‘mainstream’ these days are knuckledraggers who are busy impregnating their 12-year-old sisters on council estates and only stop off for a post-coital cigarette to watch Dr Chav: a disgrace to the name ‘Doctor Who!’

Anyone with a half a brain is down their local pub binge-drinking and complaining about the credit crunch on a Saturday, anyway! 10 million viewers? Well, that means 50 million non-morons are busy doing something more intelligent!

The new show is 100 per cent about Russell T Davies whinging on about his personal life and zero per cent to do with making an enjoyable, intelligent programme.

A mature, intelligent, sophisticated writer would be able to separate his personal politics from good writing. Certainly, Doctor Who doesn’t deserve to be mentioned (breath out, breath in) in the same breath as the original Star Trek!

17. Beam me up - October 5, 2008

Dr. Who Cares?

18. David Blyth - October 5, 2008

Oh get a life. There’s nothing wrong with DW. People who say it’s crap grew out of it. It’s still excellent stuff.

And at least RTD can talk about real life, unlike the bloody deluded Roddenberry. It’s no secret the best Trek series have more to do with “WAR, WHAT IS GOOD FOR”, than the Getalong Gang.

19. Resident nEvil - October 5, 2008

Now that Steven Moffat is taking over from Russel T. “season finale needs more explosions!” Davies, I have every confidence that the show will pull itself back from the brink of mediocrity it’s fallen into over the last season.

Anyone who can watch Moffat’s episodes – “The Empty Child,” “Blink,” “The Girl in the Fireplace,” and “The Library” and call them “asinine” has no taste in science fiction or good television in general.

20. Captain Robert April - October 5, 2008

I say cut it back to a half hour and bring back the multipart story arcs.

“Done in one” is not a good fit for Doctor Who.

21. Beam me up - October 5, 2008

I think Stewart should come back for X Men IV. I’d go see that.

22. Number 6 - October 5, 2008

Typical Trek-snobs can’t accept or leave alone any other science fiction series. God forbid anyone should like those other shows apart from Trek. Only think I can advise is never to refer to Doctor who or Babylon 5 as ‘ low-budget, childish, and asinine’ to Mr. Harlan Ellison, he’ll cut your nuggies off!

23. Enterprise - October 5, 2008

Babylon Five was good. The CG effects were kinda crap, but the series was great.

24. Izbot - October 5, 2008

21. Number 6 –
“Typical Trek-snobs can’t accept or leave alone any other science fiction series. God forbid anyone should like those other shows apart from Trek. Only think I can advise is never to refer to Doctor who or Babylon 5 as ‘ low-budget, childish, and asinine’ to Mr. Harlan Ellison, he’ll cut your nuggies off!”

Okay, I had that coming. I can respect the legacy of Dr. Who — and its’ adherants are certainly as passionate about it as Trekfans are about their favorite franchise. I have no qualms whatsoever in seeing an actor well-associated with Doctor Who appearing in some future version of Star Trek. That kind of cross-pollenation benefits us all. Hope you Whovians enjoy ‘borrowing’ Patrick Stewart from us! ;)

25. Anthony Pascale - October 5, 2008

Beam Me Up/Energize/Enterprise
banned for a week for multiple names andspamming…you were warned

26. Grand Lunar - October 5, 2008

I think this would be fantastic!
I’d love to see how Patrick Stewart would fit in on “Doctor Who”.
Maybe his TARDIS will have a pet lion fish in it!

27. Splurch - October 5, 2008

Doctor Who has actually been around longer than Star Trek, having started in 1963. Personally, I think Patrick Stewart would be excellent as the Doctor.

28. Robogeek - October 5, 2008

This is very exciting news, if true – but I’m confounded and disappointed by those of you badmouthing Doctor Who (and, by extension, Stewart’s taste), who I can only surmise haven’t actually seen it.

Doctor Who is an absolutely wonderful, often spectacular series, and as recent reinventions go is as comparably significant and well-done as the Batman and Bond ones (although in the very different and more restrictive medium of television). In fact, this year it pretty much became my favorite current television series period (yes, even above Battlestar Galactica, Lost, 24, House, Pushing Daisies, you name it) due to such brilliant work as the two-part “Silence in the Library” and “Forest of the Dead”.

If you haven’t been watching, you’re missing out on some truly exhilarating and inspired science fiction adventure (the kind of which we frankly haven’t seen in Star Trek in years).

29. Trekmike - October 5, 2008

My gosh. I just watched the two-parter “Human Nature” and “Family of Blood” on DVD. I was blown away. It’s true, Doctor Who often has its tongue planted firmly in its cheek, but the show often demonstrates how thoughtful, creative, and fun TV science fiction can be.

If you haven’t watched it, don’t slam it. If you have only seen a couple of episodes don’t slam it either. What would a person unfamiliar with Star Trek say if their first exposure to it were “Spock’s Brain” or “Code of Honor?” Childish and asinine might be their first impression too.

30. rebecca - October 5, 2008

Just like to add my voice to those expressing their disappointment over those Trek foods who feel the need to bad-mouth other sci-fi franchises. Yes, Doctor Who occasionally suffers from low production values, and sometimes descends into silly melodrama, but at its best it’s a true example of quality sci-fi and even a compelling, human drama (I still have trouble watching the final scenes of “Doomsday” without crying). Hmmm, sound like any other TV franchise we’re familiar with?

Additionally, to say it isn’t mainstream is ridiculous. It may be largely under the radar in the states, but in the U.K. it’s just as big as Star Trek or Star Wars.

So to those of you who, after having caught one or two episodes, dismiss Doctor Who as childish and asinine, I only say this… imagine judging all of Star Trek on the basis of “Spock’s Brain” or one of Wesley episodes of TNG. Yeah. That’s what I thought.

31. rebecca - October 5, 2008

*apparently I said “foods” when I mean “fans.” WTF??

32. OM - October 5, 2008

“Why is Peter Townshend dressed in scrubs?
I suppose it be becuz he’s Doctor Who.”

…You are *so* going to hell for that one :-P Then again, I’ve seen a photochopped cover of Who’s Next where the obelisk in the center of the cover that The Who have just pissed all over was replaced by the TARDIS.

33. BND - October 5, 2008

Wasn’t Peter Davison reprising his role in tha’ new Who wit’ that crazy Tennant bloke? Just fur a bit. Tennant makes some good beer…

That’s a haunting picture thar’… likely tha’ sceen wherein Claudius is prayin’ and confessin’ ta’ God whilst Hamlet toys wit’ strikin’ ‘im down… However… did Tennant take that crown off Patty’s head? Or is he just overly bonkers? What’s he doin’ wit’ dat cigar? Oh… a bare bodkin be it, I supposes… Whar’ can I get them suits?

And why can’t we all just get along and go after tha’ real enemy- Starry Wars! Continual exposure ta’ banner ads proclaiming Trek vs. Wars has me all “Manchurian-Candidated up” ta’ blow up me some death stars and Q-wings….

Trek Wars Ahoy!
Tek Wars?

Arrrrrr…

34. Dennis Bailey - October 5, 2008

I love the new Doctor Who – Russell Davies has turned a kind of kitschy guilty pleasure into something really extraordinarily good. And while I preferred Christopher Eccleston as the Doctor, I’ve grown to like David Tennant a lot.

It’s great to have DW news here, even if only for the Trek connection – there’s no aspect of “Star Trek” *other* than Abrams’ movie that I’m not completely bored and uninterested by these days.

35. TL - October 5, 2008

DR. WHO, the best sci-fi series since TNG! I would love to see Patrick Stewart and David Tennant on the small screen. Maybe Stewart can play the Doctor’s companion or a capitan of an earth ship from the future.

36. spooky - October 5, 2008

Good grief, the venom in some of these posts is really unnecessary. It is science fiction for crying out loud. If you cannot seperate that then move on. People enjoy the programme, its fun, hip and modern. If you cannot adopt the concept then relax. You compare and analyze everything to death, snobs indeed! Nothing ever compares to Star Trek but I ask you this, if Star Trek is so great then why does it not inspire anymore.It has obviously not elevated you to any degree of objectivity. You do not respect other works of fiction to its own legion of fans. I love the show even with Russell T. Davies era but look forward to Moffat taking over.

37. Katie G. - October 5, 2008

#31. rebecca

*apparently I said “foods” when I mean “fans.” WTF??

LOL

I thought the typo was supposed to be “Trek FOOLS” of which I am one.

:-D

And spooky, I also agree that it’s disheartening to see such comments. Some are probably just angry people and some are probably just trying to start something.

I personally was one who couldn’t get into Dr. Who. Didn’t like it at all (as an adult). I remember as a kid watching it with my 12-years-older sister and being scared to death of the Daleks (when was that – – early – mid-sixties??) Now that I see those episodes I laugh and say “what was I thinking?” Cheese. But so are some Star Trek episodes. Some of the early “alien” costumes are almost embarrassing – – The Gorn, the early Klingons (add-a-goatee-become-a-Klingon), Morg and Eymorg, the Brain Cells from Deneva (flying fake barf)… you know what I mean. But we love them all the same.

kg

38. Fleet Captain Kor'Tar - October 5, 2008

I have seen the new Doctor Who episodes here in the states on KERA 13 the local Fort Worth / Dallas station for the past year . I am a fan . It is an intellectual , thought provoking , enjoyable science fiction , that does drama and comedy well .

People that pooh-pooh the thought of watching it with out having seen it , are akin to the people who think the new Star Trek film will be rubbish without having seen it .

Patrick Stewart is an excellent actor whose range reaches far beyond the Star Trek universe . I look forward to him guesting on Doctor Who . A great actor on a superb show . To all the naysayers who claim to hate that which that have not taken the time to watch , sit down and watch it one night , just give it one hour of your time .

If you don’t like it hey , that’s ok don’t watch it . The rest of us shall enjoy it without you .

Until next time …….this is Fleet Captain Kor’Tar of the U.S.S. Kahless NCC-76108

Rant over !

39. Marvin the Martian - October 5, 2008

I LOVE me my Doctor Who.

I never could get into the original series, as the $1.98-per-episode budget was a little hard to get past in order to enjoy what was going on. However, my first exposure to Doctor Who was The Five Doctors, so I guess I could have done worse. (I now own that episode on laserdisc. I’m so retro.)

However, the 2005 revamp is wonderful. No, not every single episode is a stunner–the “space Titanic” Christmas special was about as fun as a tooth extraction–but for the most part, the series is wonderfully entertaining, and the witty humor often makes me laugh out loud. (I’m sorry, but most of the time that Star Trek does comedy, it’s forced and painfully unfunny).

On the other hand, “The Girl in the Fireplace” is one of the best hours of television I’ve EVER seen. I’ve shown it to Doctor Who novices repeatedly, and without exception, their jaws are on the floor when it’s all over, they’re so impressed.

I do have to respond to this, however:

“The new show is 100 per cent about Russell T Davies whinging on about his personal life and zero per cent to do with making an enjoyable, intelligent programme.”

I’m sorry, but that’s 100 percent crap. I’ve seen this complaint repeatedly on various message boards, and it’s almost always made by people who are deeply homophobic. Just because the executive producer is openly gay doesn’t mean that the occasional–yes, occasional–gay reference and/or character is an example of pushing a “political agenda.” If you don’t like the existence of gay characters on TV, or in sci-fi programming, that’s your problem. Some of us gay Trek fans actually enjoy seeing people like us show up from time to time in our sci-fi entertainment. So sue us.

Sorry, Anthony… I just had get that off my chest. :-)

Finally… if I may add, I actually found Season Four to be the most consistently satisfying year of the new Who. I originally believed the selection of Catherine Tate was going to sink the show, but surprisingly, I’m really going to miss her as a companion. The mix of comic and tragic elements to her character really grew on me. Well done, Davies… now bring on Moffat!

40. dyaleleon - October 6, 2008

Personally, I love DW almost as much as I love ST. I would love to see Patrick Steward in the show.

41. Mark Lynch - October 6, 2008

I think Patrick Stewart will bring a great gravitas to Doctor Who. Hope it is true.

42. Resident nEvil - October 6, 2008

It really seems as though the new series has passed a lot of people by.

For anyone even remotely curious, I highly recommend watching the episode “Blink” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUgJ761iT4&feature=related) which is one of the best of the new series, which (ironically) doesn’t feature the Doctor much at all.

It’s a great introduction to the revamped series, and even if you don’t watch any of the other episodes, it’s a very intelligent self-contained story. I’ve had plenty of sci-fi haters who really enjoyed that episode, and I’m hoping to see a similar reaction to the new Trek.

43. Nuallain - October 6, 2008

On the ‘mainstream’ status of Doctor Who, it’s worth pointing out a few things. It’s been on longer than Trek, 45 years vs 42; there’s been more episodes of it (751) than of every Star Trek show put together (and, if you include Dr Who’s spin-off series that goes up to 791).

The most recent episode was the #1 watched show in the UK that week and it regularly pulls in audiences of 9-10m in a market 1/5th the size of the US. Essentially, in British terms it’s not a niche show like BSG but a thundering phenomenon like Heroes or Lost. All while pulling in figures in the US comparable to what shows like BSG and Stargate get.

All that said, it’s fair enough to say that DW will probably never be seen in the *US* as anything but a niche show.

44. Mike T. - October 6, 2008

I think the problem for some people is that they can’t enjoy a good sci-fi story unless it has hollywood quality special effects. These same people make fun of the styrofoam rocks on TOS.
Doctor Who has some of the best sci-fi stories I’ve ever seen, and also a few of the worst. On average I think it is one of the best sci-fi shows made. Besides “Blink”, people should check out “The Girl in the fireplace”, another good modern Who story.

45. Hudson - October 6, 2008

* Chuckle Chuckle *

Oh dear, oh dear, as far as I’m concerned there is no X vs Y wars.

I watch Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who, Space 1999, Lexx, Farscape, Torchwood, Babylon 5 and many inbetween. They’re not mutually exclusive.

I enjoy them all and if any of you don’t that’s fine too.

I’d like to see Patrick guest star in Dr Who.

46. Dom - October 6, 2008

Ha! Enter the Who fascists! The swarm is here to beat us down and tell us we’re all wrong! Criticising nu-Who in the UK is akin the stealing Prince William’s girlfriend! ‘You criticised my show so I’ll attack yours! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!’ Who fans are a nightmare!

And Nu-Who is utter trash! Russell T Davies took a show that, while low budget, strived for strong plotting and exciting stories (until JNT) and has turned it into little more than a hobby-horse for his personal politics, which demonstrates a very poor writer.

In its heyday (particularly Tom Baker’s earlier stories) the show worked without bombastic music, unnecessary explosions, screeching and shouting.

Far from being a Trek-snob, I love proper Doctor Who. Proper Doctor Who was, at its best, far less OTT (and it had plenty in it that was OTT). In Human Nature/Family of Blood, did we really need to see a fish-eye lens go up the bad guys’ noses followed by an exaggerated sniff to make the (obvious) point that they were bad guys, for example?

Blink, possibly one of the best Doctor Whos ever made, avoided all that sort of nonsense in favour of genuine chills. The only bad bit was where the Doctor and his idiot companion who can’t act her way out of a paper bag, appeared in 1969 (phone UNIT anyone?) In Torchwood, the cast tried for some sort of gravitas only eventually to be brought down by Freema Agyeman, who sounds more like a kids’ TV presenter than an actress playing a doctor!

The Girl in the Fireplace was great when Tennant wasn’t gurning and his gormless chav companions shouting at him.

Peter Davison, in his brief appearance, brought more dignity to the role of Doctor in one short skit than had been seen in Doctor Who in years. Tennant’s screeching and gurning in that scene showed what an utter amateur he looks as the Doctor. Davison walked away with that scene and made me wish he was the Doctor again!

As it stands, ironically, the best ‘Doctor’ of recent times is Elizabeth Sladen’s Sarah Jane Smith. Her wise, sophisticated performance is everything the Doctor’s should be.

If nu-Who knocked its screeching and running down a notch and stopped pretending to be Will and Grace, it could actually be good. I’ll give it a shot when Steve Moffatt takes over, but nu-Who under that pretentious, talentless, politically correct (I would say ‘hack’ but that’s unfair to hacks) person, Russell T Davies, is an embarrassment to TV and the people showering it with praise shows how low it aims: ie readers of OK Magazine who think Big Brother is actually good television!

For what it’s worth, I like a lot of sci-fi and fantasy shows, some more than Trek or Who, some less. I prefer Star Trek TOS, but that doesn’t mean I ***hate*** the other incarnations. Bab 5 had its moments. So do the various Stargates. Buffy/Angel was a great series (which nu-Who often slavishly plagiarises badly) Alias is a great spy-fi show. Lost is wonderful. The Prisoner was a classic and I’m nervous about it getting a ‘Doctor Who’ done on the remake.

I trust JJ Abrams with Star Trek. He’s got the old-school touch where he can genuinely take a formula and make it modern without compromising it!

It’s sad: when I see nu-Who, I actually wish the US had made a Paul McGann series, which is something I never thought I’d see myself write. The pilot was weak, yet looking at it now, it feels far more Doctor Who-ish to me than nu-Who!

47. earthclanbootstrap - October 6, 2008

While the thought of Patrick Stewart as the Meddling Monk would have me over the moon, I’d be interested to see what he could do with the role of ANY baddie on Dr. Who. While I have really enjoyed the Russell T. Davies years, for the most part, and give him full credit for bringing the show back with a bang, I have to say that I’m really looking forward to Moffat taking over. He has been central to some of the absolute best episodes of the new incarnation and let’s face it, history and John Nathan Turner have shown that you shouldn’t overstay your tenure as Producer of Dr. Who.

48. HerbieZ - October 6, 2008

I think it’s crap. I’m sorry but until my cat or dog tells me otherwise, i won’t believe anything from the Star or “The Sun”, the former i remember reading Star Wars Episode 3 being cancelled to lack of interest….

They. Print. Crap.

49. Sebastian Meyer - October 6, 2008

I find it a bit odd that Russel T. Davies is attacked for injecting his own politics and values (side note: being gay is not a value. It’s a fact) into his show. Didn’t Gene Roddenberry do the same?

50. sad fan - October 6, 2008

Patrick Stewart is nothing but pure class. He is a great actor no matter if he’s being asked to do shakespeare, star trek, or a popular movie like X-Men. I’m sure that if he is given a recurring role in Doctor Who it will only work to the credit of the show.

51. Nuallain - October 6, 2008

Just an interesting quote from an interview with Lalla Ward from a few years ago. She played Romana in Doctor Who 1979-1981 and worked with Patrick Stewart on a production of Hamlet during the period:

“Patrick said to me, ‘You used to be in Doctor Who didn’t you?’ and I said ‘Yes, I still am actually,’ and he said ‘I mean why do you do all this television, why don’t you do proper stuff like theatre,’ and I said ‘Well I love it actually, I love doing Doctor Who.’ ‘But science fiction, I mean why would you want to do science fiction?’ I said, ‘I don’t know – I think partly because you learn so much technical stuff, it’s really interesting,’ and he said ‘Oh I wouldn’t want to do that sort of stuff.’ “

52. Cheery for a new Trek movie - October 6, 2008

I was just watching an episode of Doctor Who – “42” – and I thought this very question. I think it’s fun.

It’s kinda like the episode “In the Pale Moonlight” (DS9). Before the episode, I was wondering where the Romulans were at, and sure enough, there was this episode. My favorite of all Star Trek episodes.

53. Commodore Lurker - October 6, 2008

I would love to see Patrick Stewart as an evil Time Lord!

54. alamo - October 6, 2008

Call me a traitor if you will, but Dr. Who is head and shoulders above any ST series in terms of creativity and smart plotlines. Many times have we gotten predictable plots and preachy sermons from captains instead of a suprise and a thrill.

BTW, there has already been another timelord in the series, and I expect the Master will return some day.

55. CarlG - October 6, 2008

Ohh, man this had better be true about Patrick Stewart on Dr Who! That would be just awesome.

Oh, and Dom — this repressing your emotions… it’s just not healthy. Stop holding back and tell us how you really feel. ;)

56. DEMODE - October 6, 2008

I would rather Patrick be “the next” Doctor. Either that, or bad guy # 1. He needs to be someone of great importance, and not a throw away character.

57. Dennis Bailey - October 6, 2008

#46: “Ha! Enter the Who fascists! The swarm is here to beat us down and tell us we’re all wrong!”

Nope. Just one guy here who’s seen all of “Star Trek,” a huge amount of old-style “Doctor Who” and all of Davies’ “Doctor Who” – and I’m here to tell you that you’re wrong. LOL

58. Dom - October 6, 2008

Hi Sebastian Meyer (49)

Some Who fans love to play the homophobia card when people attack RTD! I’m sure you didn’t intend to imply that I don’t like RTD’s writing because I’m homophobic, but you should be careful not to jump to assumptions! I actually don’t care what a writer’s orientation is: as long as what they write is good, they can boink whomsoever they want!

I don’t like RTD’s writing because his scripts are lazily plotted on the assumption that the viewers are too dumb to notice! His stories attempt to bludgeon the audience with enough sound and fury that he hopes they won’t realise that, beyond the occasional nice character moment borrowed from Buffy, nothing in the last hour made any sense whatsoever! He also has a reliance on ‘fairy dust’ (no gay-related pun intended, I promise!!) as a deus-ex-machina cop-out for most of what he writes.

PJ Hammmond commented that the reason Adventure Three of Sapphire & Steel is his least favourite is that he let his personal politics interfere with telling a good story. I just think that shoehorning politics into a TV show is immature and shows a lack of sophistication in your writing. Star Trek TOS managed to deal with real world issues via allegory. Most modern Who writers seem incapable of this and prefer to lecture!

I guess I should now go to hide in a bunker as, no doubt, the former Outpost Gallifrey Forum is being mustered to swarm over here and exterminate me! ;)

Anyway, on a separate note, I would be interested to see Patrick Stewart play Mortimus, as it’s been a long time since Peter Butterworth played the character. It’d be nice to bring back more Time Lords.

I just hope they resist getting the Monk to say ‘Make it so!’ or ‘Engage!’ ;)

59. MONGO - October 6, 2008

Mongo want know how Dennis Bailey mans be bored by movie he not see yet? Maybe Dennis Bailey mans mean he bored by news item that mostly say same thing. But this Trekmovie site. What else expect to see?

Mongo think Dennis more open minded than he appear. Mongo like Dennis idea and Mongo like Exeter too. But Mongo hope that Dennis Bailey mans decide not to jump on “trash JJ Abrams man” bandwagon without see movie first. If hate it, trash away.

60. Dom - October 6, 2008

Dennis Bailey (57) No Dennis, you’re not here to tell me I’m wrong. You’re here to give me your opinion that I’m wrong! :p ;) I respect that you’re a TV writer and all, but you also have to watch your butt to make sure you don’t lose the chance to work on the show yourself, so you’re bound to say its good (and I’m sure you’d write a very good episode!)

I guess I just think the best of US television far outstrips nu-Who and wish nu-Who wouldn’t bother to try to compete. At its best, Doctor Who draws from theatre and classic literature. Nu-Who tries to draw from Hollywood movies and TV shows and simply looks like a cheap wannabe! Nu-Who is a show that is so possessed of self-loathing that it seems scared just to be Doctor Who!

That’s why Moffat’s shows are generally the best: they don’t work off over-the-top CGI FX and bad recycled jokes. Blink works because a statue moves when it’s off camera. It’s a brilliant, memorable piece of TV and stands as the one DVD of this new show that I’ve actually bought.

If we get more Blink (in terms of lower-key stories which concentrate more on having a plot) and less Aliens of London (OTT runarounds with loads of obvious CGI, no plot and bad writing), I’ll be a happy chappie!

And CarlG: I’m always scrupulously honest. Believe me! ;)

61. Steve Roby - October 6, 2008

How is it that most people I know who like Star Trek also like Doctor Who, but Star Trek and Doctor Who sites have so many people bashing the other show? It’s getting beyond tiresome.

62. Craig - October 6, 2008

Dom I think I know how you feel, as I feel the same about XI as you do about “Nu-who”. I practically wrote the same post as you(46) on Star Trek.com. I think “Nu-who” like XI has moved away from the fans that love the older series in effort to attract a new audience some fans like it others don’t.

63. Dom - October 6, 2008

Hi Steve Roby (61) Sadly, I guess we hurt the ones we love! I think Doctor Who, because it’s encompassed so many styles, attracts different fans for different eras. I like all of Tom Baker’s stuff, for example, except some of season 18. The humour and the the horror works well for me. I like some of Peter Davison’s era, in spite of the lack of humour, and Colin Baker’s first season as well. McCoy’s era had some good concepts, along with lousy execution.

But I’m sure you’ll find as many people who think they’re cr@p! I try to stay away from Doctor Who and its fans, because Who fans come at the show from such different directions that they all just end up bitching at each other (me included!)

And hand-on-heart, I’d had a night at the pub when I sent my earliest posts, so was rather more vocal than maybe I should be! ;)

I just wish we could see BBC4 get the rights to make a new a Sapphire & Steel adventure in the studio under similar conditions to the original show: ie low key, simple FX and so on!

64. Dom - October 6, 2008

Hi Craig (62)

In fairness, I waited to give nu-Who a well-deserved kick in the nads until after seeing a good few episodes! ;)

I also respect the past work of the XI production team, unlike Russell T Davies, whose previous programmes such as The Second Coming were rubbish!

Hang in there Craig! Abrams at least gives us a little cause for optimism! :)

65. maxmacster - October 6, 2008

Doctor Who’s Blink was one of the best Sci-Fi horrors *cough* (if your young) that has ever been written. A true masterpiece of story telling as well.

And just for pure fun, we had the Cybermen v’s The Daleks in verbal smackdown! I hadn’t laughed so hard in years at that particular scene at the end of season 2

I’ve been a Whovian since I was a child and can remember Jon Pertwee as the Doctor (Tom Baker will always be my favourite tho)

Who has always had manic moments of drama. such as Tom Baker offering Davros a Jelly baby whilst being sentenced to death.
It’s a British thing and I love it!
And Patrick Stewart is about as British as you can get! Bring him on board!!

66. Dennis Bailey - October 6, 2008

“Mongo want know how Dennis Bailey mans be bored by movie he not see yet?”

Actually, Mongo, I was saying that the Abrams movie is the only “Trek” subject that I’m *not* bored by these days. I’m fascinated by it and looking forward to it.

Everything else – toys, what the old actors are doing, comics, DVD collections, reruns… eh.

The fan films do interest me because I work on them – they’re an activity and a hobby that extends beyond just consuming them, so I have some emotional investment. ;-)

67. Jamie - October 6, 2008

I absolutely agree with #19 (Resident nEvil)

For anyone who thinks Doctor Who is childish, I have only two words to say:

STEVEN MOFFAT!

Trust me, once he takes over, you won’t want to miss it. Asked whether his Who would be too frightening, he responded: “If your concern is that with me taking over Doctor Who, it’s going to be really really frightening every week, then tough.”

I love him.

68. Dr. Image - October 6, 2008

I’m very impressed with Moffat’s efforts.
Who will be in good hands.
The question is- WHO could possibly ever replace Tennant?

69. Craig - October 6, 2008

67… I’m really excited for Moffet run Who but I’m trying not to get too over excited. How he handles Tennants departure from Who has got to be better handled than Richard Coyle in Coupling

70. dalek - October 6, 2008

It was my understanding the Meddling Monk was the origins of the Master, and he is currently played and due to return, by John Simm.

71. maxmacster - October 6, 2008

70…Really? John Simm is to return as the Master? Where did you hear / read about that, if you don’t mind me asking?

72. Big Bill C - October 6, 2008

#67

I agree…Moffat is THE MAN. I love his work and think he’ll bring great things to Doctor Who. Also, his Who stories have won Hugos three years in a row against some heavy competetion. I have total faith in him

73. Todd - October 6, 2008

#70 – The Meddling Monk and The Master are separate characters.

74. krikzil - October 6, 2008

I really like Dr Who and it’s spinoff, Torchwood. I look forward to Patrick guesting on it.

75. JWW - October 6, 2008

would rather have seen him on ‘red dwarf’…

that would have been a scream.

dr who? that must be a big thing across the pond…

oversized salt shakers bent on extermination…. easy enough to get away from, just climb some stairs.

76. dalek - October 6, 2008

#71 Here’s the article about Simms return:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/cult/a129785/tate-simm-to-make-who-return.html

#73 Some fans will disagree with you. I’ve not seen the episode, but I’ve seen it debated a lot on DVD reviews.

This fan starts his review “The first ever appearance of the master”
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/3565046/Doctor-Who-The-Time-Meddler/Product.html

77. P:SI #249 “OMG A White Namic” | Project: Shadow - October 6, 2008

[...] Patrick Stewart To Guest Star On Doctor Who? (via Trek Movie) [...]

78. MONGO - October 6, 2008

#66 Dennis Bailey mans

Thanks for set Mongo straight. Mongo not think that sound like you. Sound like 180 degree turnaround.

79. Craig - October 6, 2008

#76 Some fans also believe the Doc was “loomed” and doesn’t procreate naturally, also given the last episode it shows Davies is prepared to contradict some canon details eg. half human.

80. DonDonP1 - October 7, 2008

“Patrick Stewart To Guest Star on Doctor Who?” “Theoretically, it is possible.” Yes, “Star Trek” is owned by CBS and “Doctor Who” is owned by the BBC.

81. Finny - October 7, 2008

I like Doctor Who as much as I Like “Star Trek”

82. dennis bailey - October 7, 2008

I’ve gotten a lot more enjoyment out of “Doctor Who” and Joss Whedon’s shows (mainly “Buffy” and “Firefly”) in the last decade than I have from Trek.

Hell, through “Farscape” in there too. ;-)

83. krikzil - October 7, 2008

Yes, Buffy, Firefly and Farscape were great. I also liked Angel and Babylon 5.

84. The Underpants Monster - October 7, 2008

The first series of New Who with Crhistopher Eccleston as the Ninth Doctor was some of the best TV I’ve ever seen. In particular, the two part Empty Child/Doctor Dances still shines in my memory as perhaps the two best hours of TV I’ve experienced in my life (Maybe tied with The Best of Both Words Trek two-parter).

Subsequent seasons have been not so good. It seems to have degenerated into Russell’s Giant Teenage Fanwank. My guess is that the critical and popular success of the first series allowed him to rest on his laurels and become too self-indulgent and the series too self-referential. The first series was huge in crossover because there was plenty of stuff for people who hadn’t been watching Who since 1969. Also, I think the production company spread themselves too thin with Torchwood.

My hope is that once Davies is out and Moffat in, Dr. Who has a chance of getting back to what it was a few years ago – now THAT would be a respectable enough show to attract guest actors of Mr. Stewart’s caliber. (Also, I hope the rumors that Robert Carlyle is being considered as the eleventh doctor are true.)

85. The Underpants Monster - October 7, 2008

ETA: My personal preference would be to have less dabbling about with the Time Lord mythology. For me it;s one of those things best left shrouded in a bit of mystery. Of course, my favorite episodes of The X-Files were the ones where they went out on interesting cases rather than the ones where they delved into the conspiracy of their lives.

86. Philip Miles - October 7, 2008

A Potential look/feel for a Time Lord played by Stewart

http://tinyurl.com/meddling-monk

87. Dom - October 7, 2008

I’d actually rather see Patrick Stewart play The Doctor.

88. Dennis Bailey - October 7, 2008

He’s way too old to play the modern Doctor. Going forward, they need (and intend) to keep the character a young forty-ish at most.

89. June Rodemyberry - October 7, 2008

Only the americans could see the whole vastness of space and time and fill it with the military dressed in pyjama’s.
At last Patrick Sterwart has made the leap from silly pulp sci-fi which lets be honest all of Star trek is, to the Daddy of them all.

90. MONGO - October 7, 2008

June…um…persons

You silly person. Take long look at lot of culture in you country and see where much of it derive. It lessen argument to put something down in order to praise what you like. For example (Mongo paraphrase):

“Only the British could see the whole vastness of space and time and fill it with people in need of dental attention.”

And for record,”Voyage to the Moon” “Metropolis” and “Shape of Things to Come” be more like grandparents to all them.

91. Dr. Image - October 7, 2008

#84- Robert Carlyle?
Naa. Too Ecclestonesque.
Not that that’s a BAD thing… I hope Tennant stays on.

92. The Underpants Monster - October 7, 2008

#88 – Respectfully disagree. The best part about the Doctor is his agelessness. The physical age of the actor is irrelevant if he can pull that off.

Re: The Meddling Monk – sounds like a bad idea to me. For one thing, they’ve mucked about too much in recent years with bringing back every guest race/character from 30/40 years ago. It’s starting to get annoying, and I think it stifles creativity. Also, I’d hate to see the drama of the Doctor being the last of his race diluted. “All that angst I was going through? Oh, never mind.”

93. Dennis Bailey - October 7, 2008

#92: ” The best part about the Doctor is his agelessness. The physical age of the actor is irrelevant if he can pull that off.”

Not to the expanded audience that has embraced “Doctor Who” in the 21st century as a result of Davies’ recreation of it. The youth of the main characters is pretty central to pushing its success beyond the music hall appeal of the old version

94. Jamie - October 7, 2008

#88, Dennis,

I would disagree. Although a younger Doctor might be good at pulling in a lot of younger viewers, and that’s probably what the BBC will stick with to play it safe; I do not agree that a young Doctor is what new Doctor Who is all about.

The last 3 Doctors just happen to have been young, but I don’t think that’s what makes the show what it is. As #92 said, the Doctor has an ageless quality and could be played by a man of any age, and I’m sure most fans (and writers of the show) would agree.

95. classictrek - October 8, 2008

As a Brit im glad to see Dr Who back, bigger than ever. The show is a British institution. My own favourite Dr was Jon Pertwee from the early 1970’s. I havnt quite grasped the fuss of the new series with tennant etc but im just glad its back. Now millions of little Britons will have the same experience i did growing up, hiding behind the sofa because of those Daleks!!

It would be good for Stewart to appear in the show as a villian. I couldnt see him as the Doctor now – although that would be interesting.

cheers
Greg
United Kingdom

96. Dennis Bailey - October 8, 2008

#94:”…a younger Doctor might be good at pulling in a lot of younger viewers, and that’s probably what the BBC will stick with to play it safe”

Exactly.

“The last 3 Doctors just happen to have been young…”

They don’t “just happen” to have been young. Those were deliberate casting choices, to make the central character on the show more broadly attractive and – sorry – marketable to a wider audience in the U.S. as well as the U.K.

97. The Underpants Monster - October 9, 2008

Eccleston was in his forties, but when I watched him I didn’t see a fortysomething actor; I saw a 900-year-old character.

The show HAS the young audience now, and I think they’d be content with an actor of any age who could pull off the same vibrancy and vitality. If they’re worried about it, they can make sure to pair him with younger companions.

98. The Underpants Monster - October 9, 2008

Also, the audience for Dr. Who has ALWAYS been young. I think the smaller audiences of the past were more due to things like super-low production values, lack of promotion by the network, spotty-to-poor distribution in secondary markets, and public attitudes toward TV scifi in general that they were to the age of the lead actor. None of those things are factors anymore. It’s a slick, well-funded show with high production values, promoted like crazy, and well-marketed worldwide and on the Internet. And right now demand for quality sci-fi TV is outstripping supply.

99. Jon - October 10, 2008

Dr Who is a kids show. People need to get over themselves.

100. heroesSTfan - October 19, 2008

#84

The eleventh Doctor has been cast. Tennant will stick around for the specials of 2009 and Series 5 of 2010, but for Series 6 in 2011 we get Doctor #11 . . . Paterson Joseph. Paterson was Roderick in Doctor Who (2005) 01×12: Bad Wolf. He was the man who played Weakest Link against Rose.

I completely agree on Empty Child/Doctor Dances. That was some of the best television I have ever seen (and will ever see).

101. abnehmen - July 26, 2011

Hello there, I found your blog by the use of Google while looking for a similar matter, your website got here up, it seems good. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.