Doctor Who Makes Guinness Book of World Records

shadowlight1 writes "According to a BBC press release, cult favorite Doctor Who has entered the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's longest running science fiction show! There we go, it's official. Also, the second season of Who premieres on the SciFi channel tonight." From the release: "The series began on 23 November, 1963, and was revived in 2005 after 16 years off the screen. William Hartnell played the original Doctor Who, with Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker and Peter Davison among those following in his footsteps. Christopher Eccleston took up the mantle of the ninth Timelord last year - following the show's relaunch. He was replaced after just one series by David Tennant after Eccleston dropped out. "

Here Here

[AlzaF]

A prime example of traditional great british entertainment

Re:

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

There has to be some comedy combination of longest run through time and Time Lord ... sort of pun.

If only I had a TARDIS I could grab the best one from the end of this thread and insert it her.

Re:

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

I have to reply to myself on behalf of Freud.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

I think that Samantha Carter would know more about wormholes... ;)

Re:

[AceCaseOR]

I'm glad to see the good Doctor made the list. My question is before Doctor Who, what was the longest running sci-fi TV show? The original Twilight Zone? The new Outer Limits? Stargate SG-1?

Re:

[denebian devil]

Technically, if you can say that Doctor Who has run for 43 years (i.e. counting the interim years where no new Doctor Who was made), The Twilight Zone has run longer (44 years by my count: first episode in 1959, last in 2003). However I don't believe it had even close to 700 episodes.

And if you look at the entire Star Trek Franchise as a whole, it is "younger" than Doctor Who (40 years) but has almost 4 times as many episodes.

Stargate doesn't even come close to making that cut, with only 10 years for SG1 an

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

It was either some accounting error or that by winning generally they got disqualified from winning more specific contests.

Re:

[Salsaman]

And if you look at the entire Star Trek Franchise as a whole, it is "younger" than Doctor Who (40 years) but has almost 4 times as many episodes.

See below, Doctor Who has had 723 episodes, I highly doubt there have been almost 3000 episodes of Star Trek.

Re:

[1u3hr]

And if you look at the entire Star Trek Franchise as a whole, it is "younger" than Doctor Who (40 years) but has almost 4 times as many episodes.

About the same number: there have been 723 Doctor Who episodes, and about 700 Trek of all varieties. Some true fan can give you the exact count. However, prior to its revival, Doctor Who was in 25 minute episodes, (the new series are 43 minutes) Trek in 43-50 minutes, so there are more hours of Trek, but not "4 times". But I can't consider the several Trek shows

Nitpick: it's "Hear, hear"

[Clueless Moron]

It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!" [straightdope.com].

I don't normally nitpick, but "here here" doesn't even make sense. "Hear, hear" does.

Except when it isn't

[Carnildo]

But if you're saying where you want the thousand pounds of grammar textbooks to be dropped, it's "Here! Here!"

Re:

[AlzaF]

its not my fault you can't understand my accent

not not

[eclectro]

I could never take seriously a robot that has a bathroom plunger as an appendage. Sorry.

And that new "floating up stairs" thing is pretty corny too.

Not true, it is science fiction...

[KingSkippus]

At least, using the Wikipedia definition [wikipedia.org]. Dr. Who does not delve into the magical or supernatural, which is what differentiates science fiction from fantasy. Or rather, at least when it does, it does so with the understanding that there's some logical scientific explanation.

Just because they make up some of the science (and may be wildly inaccurate) doesn't make it not science fiction.

Re:

[fyngyrz]

At least, using the Wikipedia definition.

No. Heinlein puts his finger on it (no surprise there, either): "realistic speculation"

The Wikipedia article accurately notes that "an uneducated person will have different expectations about what science can do than a professional physicist." This is what causes people to mistake, for instance, Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica as science fiction instead of the fantasies they really are. Those mistakes do not somehow mutate those artworks into

Re:

[AK Marc]

The Wikipedia article accurately notes that "an uneducated person will have different expectations about what science can do than a professional physicist." This is what causes people to mistake, for instance, Star Trek, Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica as science fiction instead of the fantasies they really are.

Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek is SF. There were some changes that were made for TV, such as the transporters, that might not be science based, but the show is very much in line with

Re:Not true, it is science fiction...

[Squalish]

So... just to pull the last few books of Heinlein's I've read off the shelf and flip through them...

Stranger in a Strange Land
blurb: "The best-selling underground novel by the dean of American science fiction writers"
features: Martian psychokinetic abilities which include teleportation and mentally causing matter to cease to exist/

Starship Troopers
blurb: "the classic novel by the greatest science fiction writers of all time"
features a "brain bug" which controls a colony psychically, as well as good old-fashioned human psychics.

Glory Road
blurb: "the irrepressible science fiction classic!"
features: Magicians and transdimentional portals

I Will Fear No Evil
blurb: "Magnificent - a science fiction masterpiece"
features: A body which, after a complete brain transplant, interjects the donor body's personality into the consciousness of the new composite as a self-aware, sentient split personality.

Not much of Heinlein's work qualifies as science fiction under your definition.

Like it or not, but "science fiction" has become a genre based primarily upon finding necessary in the reader a willing suspension of disbelief in order to experience the story within the parameters given. The disbelief is generated because the story usually violates current scientific understanding. What we classify as 'hard sci-fi' as advancing only technology, rather than fundamentally changing what we know of science - and in its true form it's a rather small genre.

Re:

[mgv]

SF (which originally meant "science fiction", not "speculative fiction") was born of the idea that a story would be wrapped around one or more concepts that either were supportable using current science, or could reasonably be extrapolated from current science. Hence, the "science." This was the thing that differentiated the genre from, for instance, just anything you wanted to write about. The idea was to inflame the reader with "Wow! This could actually happen!"



The problem with this definition is that sci

Re:

[fyngyrz]

And why would I want to do that? Did you infer that I didn't enjoy fantasy from something I said? If so, what? I'm interested to hear why you have come up your fascinating statement. Do tell.

Re:

[fyngyrz]

Well, if that is the case, then he would simply be wrong. :-)

Re:

[fyngyrz]

I think that while you're definition may be an accepted definition, it's also wrong, and shortsighted. And probably not nearly subtle enough.

It is the definition the people who founded and birthed the field came up with; the definition that SFWA, in the Milford meetings, decided was the definition. Accordingly, I believe I'll stick with it, as opposed to a more recent re-casting. All it does is provides a factor to shelve and otherwise classify books by these days anyway. It isn't like fantasy is an i

Re:

[KingSkippus]

At is the definition the people who founded and birthed the field came up with; the definition that SFWA, in the Milford meetings, decided was the definition.

Oh, because it's not like language evolves or words take on new meanings, is it? Or that words and phrases can have multiple meanings? Or that there is a Semantic Oracle to consult on the matter with final say-so?

It doesn't matter to me if you think that "science fiction" is limited to books exclusively written in Dutch that are exactly 371 pages l

Re:

[fyngyrz]

I thought the point of Sci-Fi was that you make up a piece of science and then go with it (Asimov -> Postitronic space, Star Trek -> Subspace/warp drive which is losely based on relativity

The thing about extrapolating a piece of science (or even carefully observing the science we already have) and then conforming to the possibilities thus exposed is that it isn't easy to do at all; if you fail to carefully understand the science we have, what you make up will not be probable, or even possible, b

Doctor Who is not Science Fiction

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Dr. Who does not delve into the magical or supernatural, which is what differentiates science fiction from fantasy.

That's hardly a clear-cut distinction, as the most recent Doctor Who episodes amply demonstrate (to those who have already seen them). And may I remind you of Clarke's law that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?" A slightly more detailed rendition of this argument (caveat: includes a spoiler if you haven't seen "The Idiot's Lantern" yet) can be found here [tfbw.com].

you misread the Wikipedia article!

[Xtifr]

Because, when I read it, it specifically said that Dr. Who was an exception and does not qualify as science fiction. And then it went on with something about the population of elephants tripling in the last six months that I didn't quite understand.... :)

Re:Not true, it is science fiction...

[Scooter]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I think that may have once been true of Dr Who, but some of the latest "plots" have been absolute trash. Many of the critical "facts" the plots hinge on are just too broken and in some cases, make me cringe.

A few examples:-

The "gas creatures" in Dickens Cardiff/Swansea "I know, we'll kill them by filling the room with gas, because they are gas creatures" Huh?!? The room is already filled with gases you moron. We call this mixture "air". Why was the coal gas going to kill them? No basis

Re:

[1u3hr]

I'm the last one to calim Doctor Who is hard SF, nevertheless:

For me though, the absolute worst gaff came with the "base on an asteroid orbiting a black hole" epsisode. No - I'm not even talking about the whole can of worms that is things orbiting black holes in a stable fashion.

Nothing wrong with having a stable orbit around a black hole. Actually, we're in orbit around one at the centre of the Milky way. If you're close up you will be going at a fair fraction of light speed, though, while in the epis

Re:

[fyngyrz]

Fantasy is (and always has been) a subgenre of Science Fiction.

No. It hasn't. It has often been carried along as an interest of the same people; the magazine F&SF (Fantasy and Science Fiction) is a textbook example of how marketing both to the same audience works just fine, but that doesn't make one the child of the other.

Science fiction is defined by the valid or potentially valid science constraint. The idea was to wrap a story around science. Fantasy does not have such a constraint. Those st

Re:

[Planesdragon]

No. It hasn't. It has often been carried along as an interest of the same people; the magazine F&SF (Fantasy and Science Fiction) is a textbook example of how marketing both to the same audience works just fine, but that doesn't make one the child of the other.

Bold 1: "Science Fiction" is a genre. Genre is nothing more than a marketing term -- which shelf a bookseller puts the book on. There are Romance, Horror, and "Literary" novels that would fit right in with our SciFi/Fantasy books, they just wou

Re:

[fyngyrz]

Temporal order does not create a familial relationship.

Re:

[swv3752]

Err, Dracula? Same era and is wholeheartedly fantasy. Just that Fantasy was not a recognized genre.

Re:

[Planesdragon]

I would say science fiction is more a subgenre of fantasy, "fantasy" being a setting which is "fantastic"

"Genre" is nothing more than a marketing label -- which is why you see Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchet under "scifi/fantasy" instead of "comedy".

Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[fatboy]

Better than Tom Baker, but not by much :) I just loved what he did with the character.

Re:

[theantix]

I never saw the old series but fell in love with the first new one last year. This will betray my ignorance at the time of the show's history but I was totally shocked that they replaced Eccleston. I tried to Tennant a chance, I really did. I watched all of the episodes of the most recent series and was completely unimpressed, by the season finale I felt that the quality of the show has degraded to a point where I'm just not interested in watching any more of it. Eccleston brought a certain joy and opti

Re:

[PhrostyMcByte]

I have to agree - I never watched the old series (hey, I'm only 20!). Well, I did happen to catch an episode of it a few years back. I really got the impression that Eccleston nailed the role fantastically. I watched the last season too, and I can't explain what it is - Tennant just doesn't make me feel that.

Re:

[topham]

I saw a quote somewhere that was basically Eccleston saying that he told BBC upfront he would do a single season, it was pretty obvious that they were trying to ignore that fact when they were marketing the new series though.
BBC caused the confusion about it intentionally to attract an audience.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[HFXPro]

He did do an extremely good job with the doctor. A doctor who seemed happy go lucky, yet at any minute could show signs of a nervous breakdown or go psycotic. I am not that impressed with the new guy. His rendition of the doctor is not nearly as good. It seems it is played two happily, rather then a mix of happiness, sadness, depression, and wisdom gained from so many years of existance.

Re:

[1u3hr]

r. A doctor who seemed happy go lucky, yet at any minute could show signs of a nervous breakdown or go psycotic. I am not that impressed with the new guy. His rendition of the doctor is not nearly as good. It seems it is played two happily, rather then a mix of happiness, sadness, depression, and wisdom gained from so many years of existance.

The subtext going on is that the 9th Doctor was suffering PTSD from the Time War, in which he apparently destroyed all the other Timelords, to take the Daleks with th

Re:

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Agreed. "The Girl in the Fireplace" took the character to a new level. the tragedy of living so long you see everyone you love die has never been made so evident.

Tennant also has been excellent at introducing the Colin Baker-ish (and to a lesser extent the Patrick Troughton-ish) "Stupid Apes" vibe.

Re:

[Kris_B_04]

I absolutely loved his darkness and how bitter and hurt he was about the Time War with the Daleks. He was more realistic. He still had his happy-go-lucky moments, but we also saw a side of him that we never saw before.

I will miss Eccleston.

Re:

[thrashaholic]

Better than Tom? You're smoking crack.

I, for one, hated Eccleston. Granted, I've seen only a few episodes of the first season, but something about him just didn't seem like "Doctor" material to me. Maybe he just looked too macho for the role.

I actually like the new guy better (seems more quirky, like a Doctor should), but neither of them are anywhere close to Tom, or any of the first few Doctors for that matter.

Of course, I've only seen one episode with him so far, at least until about an hour from now!!

Did

Re:

[Dun Malg]

The current guy is fucking awful though. I mean the show is pretty shit, but his annoying pouting makes it unbearable.

Bah! He's just fine. Not the same as Eccleston by any means, but perfectly good in his own right. By the time I finished watching the second season last week (in all its widescreen XviD compressed glory-- good ol' P2P), I felt like he was the Doctor. If I had to rate them, I'd definitely put him up there in the second rank, under Tom Baker of course. He's certainly not anywhere near as awfu

Dr Who Makes Guiness....

[krell]

"Timelord. Brewer. Patriot".

Den Den Den Den Woooooooo

[Luke Psywalker]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0s95Mm0cFqg [youtube.com]

Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[ProteusQ]

Enough of that ST:TOS head. Replace it with the TARDIS!

Re:

[AceCaseOR]

I have to agree, if only because until the Star Wars series starts production, the only major Sci-Fi franchises filming new episodes will be Outer Limits, Doctor Who, and the Stargate franchise (with Stargate: Atlantis) - and, somehow, I don't see the Stargate ring working that well as an icon for the Sci-Fi section. Maybe the Tardis, but I'd prefer a Dalek. (Preferably with a dome on shot, much like the current icon has a head-on shot of the alien's puppet from The Corbomite Maneuver.

Re:

[ReverendLoki]

I must humbly interject at this point to gently point out that you surely must be out of your frackin' mind [scifi.com].

Ahem.

Anyways, you may want to include a profile of a Viper or a Battlestar, or perhaps a portrait style shot of a metallic Cylon soldier (those would be the more classic looking ones).

Surely there have to be other sci-fi series in production. Hmmm... does the Spaceballs cartoon count?

Re:

[AceCaseOR]

Much apologies, Battlestar Galactica slipped my mind. Bad me, bad me. (*beats self with rolled up newspaper and denies self a cookie*)

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

But he said franchises. The 4400 hasn't run nearly long enough to be considered a franchise.

I'm sure plenty...

[Cybert4]

...of doctors have made the Guinness Book of World Records. We have tall ones and short ones. Fat ones and thin ones. Who makes the titles again? Or perhaps the pun was intended.

That's why we have quote signs

[mangu]

doctors have made the Guinness Book of World Records

The story title is "Doctor Who makes Guinness Book of World Records", by which I thought that there exists a doctor who keeps a record of the records and he writes or edits the Book of World Records.

Further reading lets us conclude that they meant " 'Doctor Who' makes Guinness Book of World Records". Those little quote signs aren't entirely useless...

Re:

[MyLongNickName]

Those little quote signs aren't entirely useless...

It has been a while since they have updated the data access layer. Slashdot has to strip them out to avoid SQL injection attacks.

Dr. Who in the record books...

[crazyjeremy]

Perhaps there should be another mention of Dr. Who in Guiness Book of World Records. As far as I know it's the only sci-fi show EVER to be able to complete a season in one country, before that season starts in another.

If one so wishes, he could watch all of the second season already, but in the US the second season is just now starting.

That's some amazing technology! Time travel? Alternative-Universe? Or just plain old creative bittorenting?

Re:Dr. Who in the record books...

[grapeape]

At least they are starting the second season now...that gives them time to catch up and possibly show the third while its actually current. (I hope!) SciFi sure did drag its heels about getting it on the lineup though.

The second season is BTW fantastic. You will miss Eccleston for all of about an episode or two. I have watched Dr Who since the Tom Baker days and have actually grown to like David Tennants version best of all. He has the sense of humor that Baker had, the wit of Sylvester McCoy and more athleticisim than any Doctor since Peter Davison. Christmas Ivasion is a great introduction while New Earth is a bit silly. By far the best of the second season episodes is The Girl in the Fireplace, though Cybermen and Satans Pit two parters are also fantastic. The only real stinker in the second season is Love & Monsters which as a farting monster designed by a child (chosen from a contest) that looks remarkably like Fat Bastard from Austin Powers. Overall the second season ends up even better than the first, its peppered with old favorites as well as a few rather shocking surprises.

Re:

[ericspinder]

As far as I know it's the only sci-fi show EVER to be able to complete a season in one country, before that season starts in another.

That happens all the time, but usually it's the other way around (premieres in the states and shows up later elsewhere), I'm ok with it. However, I am not ok with knowing that the 'new' guy sucks, be sure to add **spoiler alert** to your comments folks. I did think that he'd have a hard time 'filling in' for the guy from last season who seemed to portray the Doctor with ju

Re:

[senatorpjt]

Everyone always says the new guy sucks. It's not a spoiler at all.

Re:

[drsquare]

As far as I know it's the only sci-fi show EVER to be able to complete a season in one country, before that season starts in another.

Actually that happens all the time. However how the Americans are bitter that the boot's on the other foot.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

Nope, BSG season 1 was only slightly behind in the US (and I'm still sore that although Sky part funded it they didn't think to get the rights to show the HD version).

Currently no projected airdate for BSG season 3 in the UK at all... Bet that's in SD too..

Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)...

[nebaz]

Not having seen much of the original series, in the new series, the Doctor is the last of the Time Lords, after a Time War wiped them out (along with the Daleks). When in time did this occur, because it seems that in all time periods, people seem to know that the Daleks were wiped out? Do the time lords age chronologically in time? What year was their planet destroyed? Having the time lords exist in our linear time doesn't make much sense then, if they've "always never existed" (which is what it seems l

Re:

[kentrel]

Valid questions, but it's a kid's show - I wouldn't overthink it.

Re:

[fm6]

Kid's show? I've never met a fan under 15. But "don't overthink it" is still good advice, because the writers already follow it!

Re:

[asuffield]

Canon says that each TARDIS represents an independent, self-consistant timeline (which shouldn't be violated because it tends to kill you and anybody in your immediate vicinity, and usually can't be violated because approaching an origin point that lies within your own historic timeline requires infinite energy, although special circumstances can cause weirder stuff to happen) - there is no "global" timeline per se, and the universe as a whole can (and often does) become a tangled inexplicable mess. The new

Re:

[FrontalLobe]

To answer some of the questions here:

Gallifrey, the home planet of the Time Lords, is in its own time stream, so to speak. In other words, there is no time travel on that planet. If you go there, its always 'Gallifrey time'.

As far as the Time Lords regenerating after the time war, they were obviously killed in a way that their bodies could not support regeneration. Time Lords have two hearts. If one fails, the other heart keeps going and rearranges all the cells in their body. If they are hit wit

Re:

[VikingBerserker]

The Time Lords do not exist, except as opposites - with a zero value existence. Add the opposites together and the Time Lords cease to exist. [timecube.com]

Re:

[Salsaman]

Perhaps that's why it is called a "time war" - because the loser would be wiped out of all time. However, the timelords and the daleks both lost, hence both races have been erased from time.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

From what I understand, that can only happen a finite number of times.

I'll take....

[Siberwulf]

I'll take "Topics That Would Have Made Sense the First Time I Read Them, had the Author Used More Punctuation" for 1000, Alex.

Re:

[iabervon]

Actually, this article was submitted by Yoda. It's actually about a Beer Age in Myst, and it should be "Doctor Who Makes Guinness Records Book of World". Obviously.

Guinness Book of Trivia

[jimmichie]

world's longest running science fiction show ... revived in 2005 after 16 years off the screen.

That's the equivalent of running a marathon but stopping halfway through for a couple of pints at the pub, and it has nothing at all to do with the qualities that made Doctor Who great. Not everything in life needs a prize; we know Dr Who's good already.

Re:

[Zephiria]

Being english, I can tell you that the idea of stopping a marathon, heading off to the pub for a few pints before stumbling onto the track again makes PERFECT sense :D

OT: Re:Guinness Book of Trivia

[pipingguy]

Ha! That reminded me of:

Now over to the sign of the marathon for incontinent people [orangecow.org].

There's an enormous entry this year: 44 competitors from 29 countries, all with weak bladders, ready for the world's longest race and just aching to go!

[The starter's pistol goes off, and the competitors all go for the toilet.]

Re:Guinness Book of Trivia

[nagora]

Yes, but you don't get a prize for it.

Only because some cheaty bastard would run on while all the honest people were in the pub.

Re:

[M. Baranczak]

Yes, but you don't get a prize for it.

Would you rather get a prize, or get beer?

Not longest running (consecutive)?

[Roger W Moore]

So did winning the longest running of all time exclude them from the consecutive competition? Dr. Who has had way more than 10 consecutive seasons of the old series - Tom Baker must have been the Doctor for close to that many by himself. I know there were some breaks towards the end but I seem to remember well over 10 years of consecutive seasons as a kid. So how come it didn't win in that category too?

They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[szyzyg]

There's a feature length Christmas episode that introduces the new Doctor, but I guess the Sci-Fi channel didn't want to wait to show that before heading into the new series.

Re:

[nebaz]

They're showing the Christmas episode. Tonight's Sci fi a href="http://www.scifi.com">lineup

8:00 PM EST Doctor Who -- Christmas Invasion
9:30 PM EST Doctor Who -- New Earth
10:30 PM EST Doctor Who -- Christmas Invasion

What are they skipping? (Children in need 6 minute thing maybe)

Re:

[szyzyg]

Oh, well that's great then - my bad.

Now we can complain about how people are building up to Christmas too early in the year.

Re:

[szyzyg]

Oh that's a great little missing link, if people haven't seen it they should make a point of watching it before Doctor Who tonight.
They've also got the hilarious 'Curse of Fatal Death' episode up there too, with Rowan Atkinson (and others) as the doctor - another charity episode.

Re:

[grapeape]

Thanks for that...very funny!

Disqualified from consecutive??

[FrontalLobe]

FTFA: "US series Stargate SG-1, now in its 10th series, holds the world record for "longest-running science fiction show (consecutive)"."

I realize having the record for longest running probably disqualifies Doctor Who from consecutive... But last time I checked 26 (seasons) > 10... Maybe they don't count it because there were 7 different actors playing the same role (although I have to admit, I know nothing about SG-1)

The Title of This Article...

[commisaro]

... is a dependant clause. It really needs to be finished. Doctor who makes Guinness Book of World Records... does what, exactly?

Re:

[tehshen]

Are you some sort of grammar robot?

Re:

[satoshi1]

He must be, because the title actually does work on it's own.

Re:

[bbdd]

I read it like a bad rendition of "Who's On First?":

"Doctor Who makes Guinness Book of World Records!"
"Which doctor?"
"No! Not a witch doctor! Doctor Who!"
"That's what i wanted to know! Which doctor?"
"I already answered that!"

I'm a confused about this title...

[ReverendLoki]

So this is the longest running scifi series, non-continuous, and the record for longest continuous series is Stargate-SG1. Thing is, Stargate is at episode 203 rigt now, in it's 10th season. As I understand it, Doctor Who, before the 16 year hiatus, ran for 26 seasons, and around 700 episodes (probably less, ruling out some specials, etc).

So, I've looked around a bit, and I don't see any sign of a break in that 26 year run. What part of it all makes that portion non-continuous?

Re:

[FrontalLobe]

So, I've looked around a bit, and I don't see any sign of a break in that 26 year run.

Unless you count a BBC strike between season 22 and 23. And of course, during 'Shada'...

Gap in the gap

[fm6]

The series began on 23 November, 1963, and was revived in 2005 after 16 years off the screen.

The 1996 American TV movie seems to have been erased from our timeline....

I'm 40 days older than Dr Who.

[wdavies]

Wow. However, I don't really consciously remember Dr Who until Jon Pertwee came along. Remember being scared by the Sea Devils (my garndparents lived in Portsmoth, where those disused Sea Forts were a part of the scenery), the Green Death (filmed in a colliery just up the road from my town), and being chased around the local exhibition hall by some real Daleks(from BBC LLandaff). I lost interest after Tom Pertwee I think, but the latest incarnation definitely changed the tone and brought my interest back.

Re:

[crabpeople]

leela all the way, with an honourable mention for rose.

Premiere?!

[mallardtheduck]

Also, the second season of Who premieres on the SciFi channel tonight.

Er... no, the "second" season premiered on earlier this year on BBC 1. The US premiere may well be tonight, but seeing we have already had a second showing here in the UK.

Re:

[Tim Browse]

Second?! They're about to start the fifth run through here in the UK by my reckoning.

I had to tell my DVR to stop recording it because it was clogging up the schedules every single night and preventing other stuff from being recorded.

Haven't I seen that alien before

[reemul]

As a poor downtrodden American seeing the second season way behind my British counterparts, I just have one question about the Christmas Invasion episode: weren't the Sycorax a total rip-off? Am I the only one who thought that once the leader took his helmet off he looked and sounded like the aliens from Enemy Mine?
 
Could just be me.

What about Mr. Squiggle?!

[ian_mackereth]

Mr. Squiggle, the man from the Moon, ran on Australian TV for over 40 years (1JUL59 to 9JUL99) in various formats but without any 16 year gaps!

Sorry, which season is that?

[brainburger]

Am I the only one who gets annoyed when the Eccleston/Tennant seasons (or series to us Brits), are referred to as numbers 1 and 2 instead of 27 and 28?
The whole point is that the show is 43 years old, so why pretend the other 26 series never happened in the numbering?

Re:Longest running?

[abandonment]

yeah this is pretty questionable. Just because they 'revived' an old series from ancient history doesn't make it 'longest running' by any sense of the term.

How do they factor this? number of episodes? number of screen minutes? I mean stargate has been running for how many years?

Just because they haven't bothered to change the actual doctor who series name (even though it's been morphed in countless other ways) is it considered the 'same series'?

dunno, seems like a pile of crap to me.

Re:Longest running?

[xtieburn]

There is a seperate record for consecutive series which SG1 is winning.

There are 723 episodes of Doctor who in comparison to a couple of hundred SG1 episodes. In every concievable way Dr Who is the longest running series. Even if you discounted the two recent Seasons of it. Though really, every series morphs with time to some extent. However, the Doctor is still the same character, existing in the same universe, with the same enemies, the same TARDIS, the same camp quirkyness, the same relationships with companions. Its all still very much Doctor Who.

Yes it is the same series. Yes it is the longest running.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

204 SG-1 episodes have been shown so far, 214 will be the full set now that Sci-Fi has decided it wants to phase out MGM-produced Stargate. My guess as to why Who didn't win the consecutive category(even with the old Who) is that it already won so it can't win twice.

Re:

[nagora]

The 8th Doctor is alive and well on BBC Radio. The Sword of Orion is running at the moment.

Re:

[Larry Lightbulb]

So far on BBC7 there's been: Invaders From Mars, Regeneration, Shada, Slipback, Storm Warning, Sword Of Orion, The Chimes Of Midnight, The Ghosts Of N-Space, The Partadise Of Death, and The Stones Of Venice.

They're mainly the Big Finish versions ( http://www.bigfinish.com/drwho/index.shtml/ [bigfinish.com]), though the early BBC radio stories get an airing as well.

Rather than give a lot of links to my site, try the D index (http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/Index-D .html [radiolistings.co.uk]) and scroll down to where the Doctor Wh

Re:

[michaeldot]

Or crying Lallas.

Apparently, time lady Lalla Ward (Romana #2), ex-wife to the curly haired scarf wielder, when asked [metro.co.uk] who was her favourite monster, replied: "Tom Baker."

(I always think it's satisfying that now Lalla is married to someone who is probably smart enough to actually build a time machine, scientist Richard Dawkins.)