×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctor Who Makes Guinness Book of World Records

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the cue-the-music dept.

227

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. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

227 comments

Here Here (5, Informative)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251673)

A prime example of traditional great british entertainment

Re:Here Here (3, Funny)

TimothyTimothyTimoth (805771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251727)

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:Here Here (0, Troll)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252123)

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

Which companion [bbc.co.uk] did you have in mind?

Should I do Peri on her side, or Tegan in the rectum? Or maybe use a double-ended wormhole to connect 'em?

Re:Here Here (0, Troll)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251731)

A prime example of traditional great british entertainment

Perhaps so — as a matter of opinion — but it isn't science fiction, it is fantasy, and hence the GBoWR got it wrong.

Not true, it is science fiction... (3, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251869)

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:Not true, it is science fiction... (2, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252469)

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 SF; they simply identify the audience as not particularly informed consumers.

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 wikipedia article comes at this from precisely the wrong angle: It says SF is "not magical or supernatural" but that is not what SF is. SF is science derived, not "anything that isn't... whatever." SF was never defined by what it wasn't, or in other words, it was defined by what it was. As soon as it fails to be that — fails to be scientifically valid or scientifically possible — you have fantasy. And what does fantasy mean? It means using one's imagination without constraints. SF does have a constraint, and that constraint is science.

Our literature contains many examples of carefully applying these precise limits to stories, and sophisticated looks at how well this was done (for instance, see the critiques, "The Issue at Hand" and "More Issues at Hand.") Genre specialist publications (fanzines and author's self-publications from the 50's, 60's and 70's) went all through this and came down hard on the side of science. Publishers and the marketing side of the business (something I am intimately familiar with, as I own one of the oldest SF-specialized literary agencies in the world) are responsible for the blurring of the SF/fantasy line in the marketplace more than anything else.

Calling Dr. Who SF won't make it SF; the unrelenting use of fantasy elements tells the tale to any who care to look.

Re:Not true, it is science fiction... (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252861)

I want you to go home and find every book you own that contains the word "hyperspace" and burn it.

Wait, let's not stop there. Do the same for "positronic", "scrith", "force field", and "telepathy".

Re:Not true, it is science fiction... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252969)

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:Not true, it is science fiction... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253201)

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 the "purpose" of sci-fi. Sci-fi is the extrapolation of scientific elements to some future or alternate present to explore an aspect of humanity. SF is never about the technology, but it's about how the technology changes us emphasizes certain traits.

Doctor Who is not Science Fiction (1)

The Famous Brett Wat (12688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253145)

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] .

Re:Here Here (-1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252293)

but it isn't science fiction, it is fantasy

sorry, Fantasy is (and always has been) a subgenre of Science Fiction. Think of it as 'novels for nerds'.

Re:Here Here (1)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252419)

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

Re:Here Here (1)

iMaple (769378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252647)

Yeah, I agree. Scifi is obviously a sub genre of fantasy and not the other way around.

Re:Here Here (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252643)

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 stories can (and are) wrapped around anything the author would like to claim, with or without rationalization, justification, or supporting framework(s) in the real world.

Think of it as 'novels for nerds'.

I prefer to think of it as "fiction for the scientifically minded reader."

Re:Here Here (2, Interesting)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251857)

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:Here Here (2, Informative)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253339)

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 and 3 I believe for Atlantis. I don't even understand how they get the longest running consecutive Sci-Fi show.... Doctor Who (the original) should probably win that one, too.

Re:Here Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252107)

A prime example of traditional great british entertainment

Since it's number 1, by definition it can't be prime. Star Trek, in the #2 spot, *is* a prime example of a long-running science fiction program (or programme, as the Brits like to spell it).

Nitpick: it's "Hear, hear" (2, Informative)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252365)

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 (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252689)

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

Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (4, Interesting)

fatboy (6851) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251683)

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

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (0, Flamebait)

MicrosoftRepresentit (1002310) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251751)

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

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252513)

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 awful as the "Look I've Got Celery In My Pocket" 5th Doctor, or the daft "My Umbrella Has A Question Mark On, As Does My Sweater Vest" 7th Doctor.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (1)

theantix (466036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251781)

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 optimism the role, I think what I really liked was not the show itself but instead the tone character that he played.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252263)

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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (1)

fohat (168135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252311)

I will agree that Eccleston was a great choice for the roll, however from what I read about it a while back, it was actually Eccleston that had made the decision to only do one season of the show as he didn't want to be type cast. I haven't even seen any of Tennant's performances as of yet, but the teasers I saw did not look too bad.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (4, Interesting)

HFXPro (581079) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251799)

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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (1)

Kevan_moran (661209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252521)

Tastes vary of course but I thought Tennant was superb. The "Girl in the fireplace" episode is very very good. I don't see hoiw you can complain of a lack of emotional range once you've watched that episode

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16253149)

It seems it is played two happily, rather then a mix [...]
'two' means the number 2, you need to use 'too' here.
'then' is used when you make a reference to time, for comparisons you need to use'than'.

Your friendly neighborhood nitpick

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah (2, Interesting)

Kris_B_04 (883011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252593)

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.

Dr Who Makes Guiness.... (5, Funny)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251689)

"Timelord. Brewer. Patriot".

Re:Dr Who Makes Guiness.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16251767)

Now if they just got Tom Baker back for an episode set in Candlestick Park...

Chuck Norris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16251725)

Of course, Chuck Norris is really the world's longest running science fiction show. Dr Who just happens to be the closest anything else has ever gotten. Check the small print...

Tom Baker (1)

netglen (253539) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251821)

Tom Baker was the original timelord gangster. All the rest that came before and after re a bunch of crying Marys.

Longest running? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16251833)

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

Must have been one loooong first season then :)

Re:Longest running? (3, Insightful)

abandonment (739466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252229)

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? (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252327)

While I do think counting the new series' episodes in the tally is unfair, there is no way Stargate has been running longer than the original Dr. Who ran. It started in the early 60s and and ended in the late 80s or early 90s. It was in black and white for the first several seasons, even!

Re:Longest running? (4, Insightful)

xtieburn (906792) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252569)

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:Longest running? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252573)

I am a fan of both Stargate (having seen every episode one of the 200+ episodes to date) and Doctor Who, although I have only seen a fraction of the 600+ episodes of Doctor Who.

Last time I checked 600 was a larger number than 200, although SG-1 is an American series, which probably makes it more important in some way that I don't quite understand yet.

1963 is also a little earlier than 1997 (the start of SG-1) and SG-1 has lost major cast members, having some disappear for entire series. Infact, the lead character only appears in "special" episodes at the moment in a much reduced role, and his position has been taken by actors from Farscape!

Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon... (4, Funny)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251849)

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

Re:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon... (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251917)

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:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon... (1)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252221)

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:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon... (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252339)

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

I'm sure plenty... (2, Insightful)

Cybert4 (994278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251859)

...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.

Dr. Who in the record books... (3, Funny)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#16251885)

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... (3, Interesting)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252247)

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:Dr. Who in the record books... (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252347)

I thought Battlestar Galactica (the current one) completed season 1 in the UK before it showed up in the US.

Re:Dr. Who in the record books... (1)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252453)

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 just the right amount of insanity and logic. I'm too lazy to look in the right places, but does anyone know why he did only one season? was it something that was planned from the beginning or a end-of-season contract dispute?

Re:Dr. Who in the record books... (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252775)

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.

Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252013)

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 like).

My idea is maybe they have a concept of linear time, but it is a line "perpendicular" to our timeline. Our entire timeline is in flux as their timeline goes forward. At one point in their timeline, our timeline consisted of a world with timelords, throughout history. Later in their timeline, our timeline consisted of a world where the timelords had always been destroyed, throughought history. This is weird, as time travel is weird, but does anyone have any thoughts about this?

Re:Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (2, Insightful)

kentrel (526003) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252133)

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

Re:Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252405)

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:Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (2, Interesting)

ekgringo (693136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252315)

What I don't understand is why the rest of the Time Lords didn't, um, transmigrate (ie. when they change to a new actor playing Dr. Who) when they were killed unlike the current Doctor. It seems like the current Dr. Who gets killed every season but his fellow Time Lords just disappeared never to return.

Re:Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252401)

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 BBC series have been completely ignoring the canon (Doctor Who has always taken canon with a pinch of salt, but they used to try for more consistency than this) and doing whatever they feel like, creating a *stupid* tangled inexplicable mess.

Re:Here's what I don't understand (spoiler)... (2, Informative)

FrontalLobe (897758) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252619)

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 with a bomb, for example, and the majority of cells are destroyed, and both hearts stop working, they can't regenerate.

you forgot Patrick Troughton (1)

gl1b (667110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252039)

you insensitive clod! The only Doctor I ever met, in ~1985, Portland Oregon, Benson Hotel Dr Who conference.

I'll take.... (5, Funny)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252103)

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:I'll take.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252865)

I'll take "Replies That Randomly Include, Kirk-Style Punctuation, For No Good Reason" for 1600, Alex.

kronksrc.zip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252161)

hay...roo...sa...lamb

BOY

Wikipedia (1)

echocharlie (715022) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252175)

If it's newsworthy enough for Slashdot, it should be good enough for the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] , right? It still reads: "The programme is one of the longest-running science fiction television series in the world and also a significant part of British popular culture.[1]"

Re:Wikipedia (1)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252255)

not a significant part of British popular culture but an example of british popular culture since Britian is made of 4 countries and regions that have distinctive cultures and customs. It's as British as fish and chips, a pint of beer and a curry and a jolly boys day outing to the seaside.

Guinness Book of Trivia (3, Insightful)

jimmichie (993747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252177)

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:Guinness Book of Trivia (3, Informative)

Zephiria (941257) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252285)

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

Re:Guinness Book of Trivia (1)

jimmichie (993747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252341)

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

Re:Guinness Book of Trivia (3, Funny)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252543)

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.

Not longest running (consecutive)? (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252243)

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 (1)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252251)

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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode (2, Informative)

nebaz (453974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252439)

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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode (1)

illectro (697914) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253009)

If you really want to see the mini episode you can check it out here, all 6 minutes of standing around in the TARDIS trying to explain the whole regeneration thing. http://meems.imeem.com/Xfr8x3GL/video/mNasvAfl/doc tor_who_mini_episode/ [imeem.com]

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode (1)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253101)

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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode (1)

szyzyg (7313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253067)

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.

I thought Guiness breweries... (1)

stevetures (656643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252299)

I thought Guiness breweries made the Guiness Book of World Records, not a doctor or doctors (headline needs re-editing)

Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor (1)

martinmarv (920771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252305)

... there was no millennium special ...
... there was no millennium special ...
... there was no millennium special ...
</denial>

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor (2, Informative)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252321)

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

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor (2, Informative)

Larry Lightbulb (781175) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253113)

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 Who episodes are listed.

Disqualified from consecutive?? (2, Interesting)

FrontalLobe (897758) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252391)

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... (3, Funny)

commisaro (1007549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252451)

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

I'm a confused about this title... (2, Insightful)

ReverendLoki (663861) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252471)

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:I'm a confused about this title... (2, Informative)

FrontalLobe (897758) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252665)

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 (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252583)

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....

Apparently I'm NOT a moron, bur rather an idiot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252599)

I would say only an idiot would agree with Mark Cuban.

I'm 40 days older than Dr Who. (1)

wdavies (163941) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252877)

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. Cool that so much was filmed in Cardiff again. Toss up between Jo and Leela as the sexiest assistants :-)

Premiere?! (1)

mallardtheduck (760315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252885)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...