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. "

Comments

Here Here

[AlzaF]

A prime example of traditional great british entertainment

Re:Here Here

[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:Here Here

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Here Here

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

I have to reply to myself on behalf of Freud.

Re:Here Here

[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:Here Here

[AlzaF]

what's all this tomfoolery? I made a comment that Doctor Who follows in the line of traditional great british entertainment. You can't beat it.

Re:Here Here

[TimothyTimothyTimoth]

I yield. Mod OP up.

Re:Here Here

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Here Here

[Tackhead]

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

Which companion 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

[AlzaF]

Prime as in Option 5 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prime

Re:Here Here

[painQuin]

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

Re:Here Here

[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 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

[iMaple]

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

Re:Here Here

[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 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

[WilliamSChips]

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

Re:Here Here

[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".

Re:Here Here

[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 wouldn't sell as well (and vice versa.)

Bold 2: Fantasy is a subgenre of Science Fiction because Science Fiction was a recognized genre first -- at least in part because people were writing good SciFi before good Fantasy. Remember Frankenstein? Journey to the Center of the Earth? Both Sci-fi written in a time when there was no good Fantasy to be found.

Re:Here Here

[WilliamSChips]

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

Re:Here Here

[fyngyrz]

Temporal order does not create a familial relationship.

Re:Here Here

[swv3752]

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

Re:Here Here

[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:Here Here

[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 as the same series.

Re:Here Here

[EvilIdler]

Doctor Who has been the same continuity since the first episode, though.
Star Trek has several shows with different characters.

Re:Here Here

[johansalk]

Umm, for a start it's "hear hear". Then, I think it's a prime example of "traditional" alright, but "great"? Look, Coronation Street has been running since, umm, the stone age, over 46 years, but I could never stand to watch even a single episode of it.

Re:Here Here

[WilliamSChips]

I'd say that the ancient myths were pretty much the original fantasy.

Re:Here Here

[solitas]

Um, it's "hear, hear", actually.

(from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hear)
"...Hear, hear! (1689) was originally imperative, used as an exclamation to call attention to a speaker's words; now a general cheer of approval..."

But, it IS a good show and I've managed to, at one time or another, see all but the (traditionally) "missing episodes" and the rest of "season two" (in reality the twenty-eighth season - http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/SciFi/DrWho/epi sodes.html)

Re:Here Here

[mrogers]

Toxteth O'Grady?

Re:Here Here

[denebian devil]

Star Trek has several shows with different characters.

Which is why I specifically said "the Star Trek Franchise." I have no illusions that any one Star Trek series could stand against the original Doctor Who.

Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[fatboy]

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

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[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 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

[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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[fohat]

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

[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 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

[Kevan_moran]

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

[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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[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 anyone else notice that SciFi ran a marathon this morning? I completely missed it. They don't EVER fucking advertise when they're doing that, pisses me off.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

my favourite line of all time:

heh: "Look at me, i'm stupid!"

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[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:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[Anonymous Coward]

It is incorrect to say that Ms. Eccleston dropped out!!! He was informed that he would be playing the doctor for ONLY 13 episodes even before taking on the role. It was believed that once the 13 episodes were over, everyone would get the meaning of the 13 episodes and understand why he was required to stop. That did not happen, so I am telling you that your information is incorrect.

Mr. Eccleston was the best person to do the show, even if it was only 13 episodes, and I cannot see anyone else measuring up to that version of the doctor. With that, he was asked to blame the production staff for leaving; to hide the meaning of the 13 episodes, which he did. So please stop saying he dropped out, because he was required to leave after the 13th episode if the show was a hit or not. On top of that, he did everything people asked of him which indicates that he is a great actor and a great human too. So please stop discrediting him for leaving the show when he was required to do so. Thank You!!!

If you get a chance to talk to him, he will inform you that one of the (hidden) producers apologized to him for only allowing him to be the doctor for 13 episodes.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[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 them. (Of course, the Daleks did survive after all.) The 10th Doctor is getting over that, he's able to connect emotionally with humans more easily, and he's not so gunshy -- recall the Xmas Invasion when he shoved the alien over the edge. Russell T Davies does pay attention to character development, if you've seen his other stuff like the original Queer as Folk.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[lahi]

May I ask - what *exactly* would prevent Christopher Eccleston from reappearing as the ninth doctor again? Is there some law requiring that episodes of a TV-series are recorded in a chronological manner when the subject is time-travel? Hey - why not have Doctor 9 and Doctor 10 meet? Having two Billie Pipers on screen sure would be nice too.

As I have only seen a few seconds of David Tennant (Danish National TV has just finished showing the Eccleston series) I have little to judge from, but it seems he's not of the same quality. But then, Eccleston sure was (is? will again be?) great as the ninth doctor. All good things come to an end, I suppose. Just like MASH was still excellent after Radar left, even though he was missed.

-Lasse

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[iapetus]

What, you mean the way he played it as one of the Chuckle Brothers?

It was interesting, certainly.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[sc0nway]

No that was a misquote from the BBC. Eccleston did not say anything about only working a single season - he was only hired to play a single season. The BBC wanted to bring in a darker Doctor and then have him regenerate into something like Tom Baker so the old fans would not be screaming that they were ripping ideas from the original Dr. Who (does anybody remember the first season of Star Trek the Next Generation). When the news leaked that Eccleston was was only going to be out for one season the BBC initially tried to cover it up by saying that he only agreed to one season. This caused alot of bad blood between Eccleston and the BBC forcing a later (very quite) retraction.

http://www.bowjamesbow.ca/2005/04/06/hello_audienc e.shtml

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/artic le/469186/bbc-forced-apologise-eccleston-doctor-ex it-gaffe/

Being in the US we have not seen the second season yet (it comes on tonight) so I am a little sad on the mixed reviews. Having seen all the Tom Baker Dr. Whos I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[swordgeek]

Interesting, and of course a personal opinion.

I grew up with Tom Baker, and he was THE definitive doctor for me. I remember the first time I tuned in to late-night PBS for a Doctor Who four-parter, and it was...someone else! Some other IDIOT had replaced Tom Baker! I had never been so offended in my life!

That said, I thought that Eccleston was absolutely brilliant. David Tennant was a bit frenetic in comparison, which might be more in line with some of the 'classic' doctor traits, but a little wearying over the space of a season. Mind you, it wasn't his acting that was the source of the disconnect--it was the writing.

The thing about both David and Chris is that they're new Doctors for a new style of TV. Television has changed enormously over the decades that the show has been on, and even vs. Tom Baker's day, the way we write for TV is significantly different. Creating a new Doctor in the exact mould of William Hartnell would be comical and sad, and would probably be laughed out of the studio.

TV has changed. The show has to change as well.

Re:Christopher Eccleston, best Dr., Evah

[M1FCJ]

I find Tennant a lot better Doctor, never liked Eccleston. Tenant got my hearth in the Christmas Invasion, that was just cool. I finished the seaspn 28 yesterday, Tennant really rocks, I hope he makes at least 5 seasons! :)

Dr Who Makes Guiness....

[krell]

"Timelord. Brewer. Patriot".

Re:Dr Who Makes Guiness....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Chuck Norris

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Den Den Den Den Woooooooo

[Luke Psywalker]

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

Re:Den Den Den Den Woooooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, oh well, i'm sure someone found it funny.

It's mediocre, watered down, dull, and the new theme tune's crap too.

It's a shame that the BBC decided that the Dr. Who themetune sounds more futuristic when you tone it down and add some strings, whatever happened to Delia's original masterpiece?

Tom Baker

[netglen]

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

Re:Tom Baker

[michaeldot]

Or crying Lallas.

Apparently, time lady Lalla Ward (Romana #2), ex-wife to the curly haired scarf wielder, when asked 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.)

Longest running?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Must have been one loooong first season then :)

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?

[joshsisk]

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?

[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:Longest running?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Longest running?

[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:Longest running?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's still not the longest running TV show.

In the US, Meet the Press (a political news show) began airing in 1948 and continues every week.

In Japan, Sazae-san (an animated cartoon show) began airing in 1969 and continues to air new episodes.

In any case, many of the Dr. shows were broken up into three, four, or five parts so it's questionable whether those parts should be counted as different episodes or parts of a whole. I prefer the latter method. It doesn't make sense to count separate parts of one story as individual episodes.

Re:Longest running?

[SamSim]

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

How so? Even discounting the revival, the original DW series ran for 26 consecutive seasons, compared to SG1 which is coming up to 10.

Re:Longest running?

[WilliamSChips]

Because by winning in general Doctor Who was disqualified from winning the consecutive award.

Re:Longest running?

[PMuse]

In every concievable way Dr Who is the longest running series. Even if you discounted the two recent Seasons of it.

Given that Dr. Who is also one of the oldest science fiction programs, under any definition of "longest running" that allows production gaps, Dr. Who will continue to hold the record for "longest running" forever -- so long as some one makes a new episode every 10 years or so.

There are 723 episodes of Doctor who...

That's the record worth talking about. A world-record is only interesting if there are other contenders that stand a reasonable chance of claiming it. Otherwise, all we're saying is that Dr. Who is the oldest.

Re:Longest running?

[M1FCJ]

It's actually 28th season... But it was a good season, loved it.

Re:Longest running?

[Anonymous Coward]

So any instance of a show that is 'to be continued...' is counted as being a single episode with the following week's instance? That doesn't sound right to me: two 23 minute instances of Friends, for example, shown a week apart are two episodes in my book, not one.

Re:Longest running?

[mibus]

In any case, many of the Dr. shows were broken up into three, four, or five parts so it's questionable whether those parts should be counted as different episodes or parts of a whole. I prefer the latter method. It doesn't make sense to count separate parts of one story as individual episodes.

You must have an awful lot of trouble explaining what 40-minunte-segment of that multi-year-long 'Babylon 5' episode you watch each week...

Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[ProteusQ]

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

Re:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[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:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[ReverendLoki]

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

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...

[AceCaseOR]

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

Re:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[Profane MuthaFucka]

How about The 4400? It's a pretty good show, and it's sci-fi.

Re:Then maybe we can change that Slashdot icon...

[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.

Not true, it is science fiction...

[KingSkippus]

At least, using the Wikipedia definition. 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...

[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 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...

[0xdeadbeef]

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...

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

[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 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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

He's implying that you wouldn't have any science fiction books left.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

So in other words, a given work of fiction only qualifies as "science fiction" if a self-appointed group of genere literary snobs find the speculation "realistic enough"? And everything else is fantasy?

I think it's a mistake to put that peculiar sort of constraint on your definition of science fiction. Yes, some science fiction is rather rigorous. But who exactly gets to decide exactly how rigorous or speculative the scientific constraints must be in order to qualify? How many of the ideas have to be proven in peer reviewed journals before a particular work can be allowed into your oh so exclusive genre?

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

Also, I think arguments like this are pointless and the people who start them tend to take all the fun out of things. There are much better things to do than to split hairs.

But hey, I know I just watch, read, and BUY the stuff, and I know my opinion doesn't count. The nerd world has made that very clear to me.

In conclusion, I still like novels written by physicists, and Picard was much sexier than Kirk. Thank you. :-)

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

[Drall]

This strikes me as a form of the argument from incredulity/ignorance.

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

[Korin43]

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). Not that I disagree with you when you say that Dr. Who is fantasy.

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 in, well, anything. It's like we went along a bit with this dilemma to the cliff hanger and then gave up and said "er.. and then the Doctor saves everyone in some random manner".

Then there was the green goo in the school, K9 makes a comeback to sacrifice himself by luring the bad alien guys into a room and rupturing a vat of the stuff. But hang on, this stuff is harmless to humans (and metal dogs), so why all this talk of sacrifice? Yep.. the stuff then blows up for no good reason, taking K9 with it. No mention of it ever being explosive previously. However, DrWho being a fluffy bit of kids TV these days, our hero pulls a brand new metal dog out of his ass, and everything is all OK again. Pathetic.

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. It's something much more mundane. They re-enact some sort of Aliens-esque scene where they are being chased though "ventilation ducts" (or something) by the bad entity. For no adequatley explained reason they can only have air in one part of this ducting at any one time, so there's a guy operting valves and levers to move this about. Only trouble is, the fecking things are open to the room, as they're only covered by a grating.... This plot device is used to sacrifice one guy who does the noble thing to hold off the beast, which takes ages to reach him - couldn't they have waited 5 seconds for him?!?

Then of course the TARDIS gives the escape ship a tow.. - but you can forgive this, as really, we never saw a spec for the thing and it does far more amazing things than that so why not.

Bill & Ted did more to explore the paradoxes of time travel - when I watch DrWho these days I'm always left wondering why they dont just go back when they mess up and try again (like pressing the quick save in a single player FPS :P) In the old days, this was explained - the TARDIS never went where they aimed it. Now - it seems to pretty much go anywhere and anywhen they want.

There have been some good epsiodes. I always did want to know, who, in a fight, toe to toe, would win: cybermen or Daleks? I always suspected the Daleks would kick their asses, and now we know :D The "are you my mummy" plot was also quite cleverly done.

However, with all this "heart of the TARDIS" bollox, it's all gone a bit Buffy. Still entertaining, but I think it struggles to meet the definition of "Sci-Fi" now.

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:Not true, it is science fiction...

[fyngyrz]

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

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

[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 inferior genre; it's just a different one.

Perhaps — as you seem so passionate about this — you should adopt the "speculative fiction" moniker that has lately surfaced; now you've got an "SF" that applies to fantasy and science fiction. And after all... that's why they ginned it up.

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

[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 science changes over time, and the list of what is possible changes.

So some stories would be SF; but cease to be when science deems this no longer possible.

Lots of SF involves wormholes, for example, and most of what is suggested would not be possible by our current understanding of black holes, but were originally possible in theory (when the theory was not well refined)

If you "grandfather" these stories, you also have the problem that two identical stories, published on different dates, would be categorised differently.

At the end of the day, fiction is fiction. I like SF (but not the fantasy stuff that much at all) but I think you always have to give a little bit of latitude. Some of it will actually turn out true (eg geostationary orbits from Arthur C Clarke), but most of it will just be an interesting story at best.

Michael

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

[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, based upon what we know.

For instance, Ram-scoop drives appear to be reasonable extrapolations, given that we simply apply enough effort (and treasure) to the problem of creating them. Ion drives work too. Stories carefully written about these drives (see Niven, for example) can never stray from the possible, yet invoke an amazing sense of future, of possibility, of potential. The technology is possible — that is something you can keep your head wrapped around without having to suspend your critical faculties, something not possible with Trek's warp drive or Stargate's gates or Firefly's transitions out of normal space. In those cases, you have to shrug and go "OK" because science doesn't provide support for those ideas — at least, at this time. Somehow, one has to deal with relativistic issues in a reasonable (meaning, scientific) fashion. It can be done; Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero" is a work of just that kind, rife with human stories wrapped around literally galaxy spanning space travel that does relativity proud.

There are plenty of writers out there who have often gone to great effort to try and nail the science when consciously writing science fiction; Gregory Benford, Larry Niven, Poul Anderson, James P. Hogan, William Gibson, Neil Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson, Robert Forward and so on. Some of these writers also do fantasy; but they've done some toe-the-line science fiction that demonstrates the technique quite well, too.

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

[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 long. If you ask the population what genre Dr. Who is, of the ones who have seen it, 99.9% will answer, "Science Fiction." If it were something that were mathematically provable such as, "What is the sum of 6 and 5," then there's room to say that 99.9% of the population is wrong. But it's not, it's how people define the term, which is subjective.

So feel free to believe it isn't science fiction if you want to. Meanwhile, the rest of us will happily know which channel to tune in to see the show.

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

[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 episode they were basically being supported by the anti-devil magic. But I think it' the first time we've seen the Doctor in a space suit, that was nice.

when I watch DrWho these days I'm always left wondering why they dont just go back when they mess up and try again

This has always been a problem for the writers. In last year's "Father's Day" Rose doubled back to a time she'd visited before to save her father, and the whole universe started to dissolve. So the Timelords frown on people doing that. However, in decades gone by we had "The Three Doctors" and "The Five Doctors" when three and five respective incarnations of the Doctor were interacting. This was handwaved away by some talk of them being "outside time" but the whole philosophy of time travel is not at all consistent in the series. That's offset by the stories, characters and political and sexual subtexts which add a lot of interest. I'm more annoyed by insanely unlikely contrivances in shows like 24.

I think the ultimate time travel paradoxes were all covered in Heinlein's short - All You Zombies -.

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

[BetMonty]

So, based on what you're saying... wouldn't extrapolating the applications of time travel from current cosmological theories that allow for travel through time and then building a story around that be... science fiction? Science extrapolated... Just because they might turn out to be wrong doesn't make something not science fiction... it just makes the author... wrong. Getting an author to admit that is the hard part, of course. - Bet Everything I say could be wrong.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if the SFWA said so, it <sarcasm>must</sarcasm> be true. That's really in the same cagory as defining Pluto as a 'dwarf planet'. Just cause they said so doesn't mean we have to listen.

You probably spend a lot of time worrying about the whole hacker/cracker thing. Does 'gay' mean 'happy' in your universe?

There are a number of well-reasoned messages in this thread on how you are a bit full of it ... listen to them ....

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

[DeadChobi]

I have to say, also, that I like Star Trek but that I cringe every time they give a technical explanation because I know exactly how much of it is bullshit. The ability of a group of english majors to explain modern science is usually pretty laughable, so I actually prefer them to not tell me what's going on. That way I don't have to cover my ears when they suggest that the warp drive is generating an inverse tachyon field which is interfering with the dilithium matrix.

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

[Scooter]

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 episode they were basically being supported by the anti-devil magic. But I think it' the first time we've seen the Doctor in a space suit, that was nice.

I'd forgotten about the "Anti-Devil Magic". And that's a good point - if the writers just say that a particular problem or solution is down to something that is beyond what we know of the universe so far, then I have no problem accepting it. It's when they rely on things which are fairly well understood and then claim something in that area of knowledge which is known not to be true. The writers have got all of time and space to play with. The space suit is a nice example, and I agree - it was nice they remembered to issue him with one. Who can remember Peter Davison out in the vacuum of space (throwing a cricket ball against the TARDIS to exert a force on himself to push him back to an air lock (whilst holding his breath of course :P) ?

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

[WilliamSChips]

The "Sci-Fi" channel is horribly named as it seems to like playing bad horror movies and ECW better than actual science fiction.

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

[Minwee]

No, I think that makes it aptly named, although correcting the spelling to Skiffy Channel wouldn't hurt.

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:Dr. Who in the record books...

[Imagix]

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...

[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 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...

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

[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..

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

[senatorpjt]

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

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

[TEMMiNK]

You obviously don't live in Australia. So, no, that describes pretty much every show.

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

[johnsmith_12345]

You poor, poor, son of a bitch.

Only one more week to go here...

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

[ionpro]

10 episodes of BSG Season 1 aired in the UK before the first episode aired here.

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

[Dun Malg]

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

You can say that again. Any time anyone changes anything anywhere, the most vocal minority is the crabby-pants children who don't like anything to ever be different saying "eh, the old one was much better". Now, that's not to say they're not sometimes right (e.g. "celery in me pocket" 5th Dr and "Question marks on me sweater" 7th), but in this case they're just showing their inability to deal with change. Tennant is as good as Eccleston, but he's different.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair to the Love & Monsters episode, it was more a cameo showcase for Marc Warren. Kinda like those episodes of Friends or whatever other US sitcom that has an episode or two dominated by Brad Pitt or some other guest star.

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

[M1FCJ]

New Earth was hilarious - where Tennant was mimicking the last human and Rose - he's a really good actor. I think you should have a light-hearted episode once in a while. Last two episodes of 28th season were really good, apart from Rose's "I luv yuuuu" chav factor (I'm so happy, they got rid of her finally). Cybermen - Dalek standoff was a brilliant scene, ROTFLMAO!

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 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)...

[kentrel]

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

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

[ekgringo]

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)...

[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 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)...

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

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

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

[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.

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

[WilliamSChips]

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

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Quantum Mechanics Argh you had to bring in quantum mechanics.

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

[mlush]

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!

I least half the children (under 10) I know would qualify as fans (but not fanboys or girls). I know several under 7s (besides my own) who can talk knowledgeably the classic series their faveorate story and Doctor

Where do you live? I'd guess ... America where Dr Who is on at 9pm on a niche channel. in the UK its on at 7pm BBC2 (prime time on a prime channel), its aimed directly at the children but with the intent of making it family viewing. Aunty has been sending our the new books and audio books for schools to review. The also preview each episode to a panel of (very lucky children age 5 to 13) who give it a Fear Factor rateing allowing parents to know who's bed little Timothy will be sleeping in that night... Then there is the Merchendice

Make no mistake Dr Who is made for children. Luckly adults are allowed to watch as well

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

[mcvos]

I think wars where both parties travel in time can get really messy, in the sense that complete timelines get changed or wiped out, or something.

For the Traveller universe (a game universe where 300,000 years ago unknown "Ancients" spread humans to dozens of planets, terraformed and/or destroyed lots of planets and generally made a big mess of things), I once read an alternative explanation for the Ancients that involved time travel: the Ancients were actually advanced humans that got involved in a time war, and by the "time" the war ended and the timeline was stable again, the galaxy had ruins everywhere and humans living all over the place.

Basically, a timewar doesn't just mean the future gets rewritten, but the whole of reality gets rewritten. Perhaps that's what happened in Doctor Who?

Or maybe the writers just didn't think much about it.

you forgot Patrick Troughton

[gl1b]

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

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:I'll take....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'll take....

[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.

What?

[geognerd]

What *about* the doctor who makes the Guinness Book of World Records???

kronksrc.zip

[Anonymous Coward]

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

BOY

Wikipedia

[echocharlie]

If it's newsworthy enough for Slashdot, it should be good enough for the Wikipedia entry, 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

[AlzaF]

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

[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:Guinness Book of Trivia

[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

Re:Guinness Book of Trivia

[jimmichie]

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

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:Guinness Book of Trivia

[M. Baranczak]

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

Would you rather get a prize, or get beer?

Re:Guinness Book of Trivia

[WilliamSChips]

Considering that I don't like beer at all, a prize.

then edit it

[Phantom of the Opera]

you silly person!

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?

Re:Not longest running (consecutive)?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly. A number of the old "seasons" were only a paltry four episodes.

Re:Not longest running (consecutive)?

[Larry Lightbulb]

What is this "season" that you speak of?

Re:Not longest running (consecutive)?

[aderack]

That would be observant if it were true. The shortest seasons (23-26) were fourteen episodes long. For the first six years or so, the show ran year-round with only a couple of weeks off here and there, for special occasions. Forty-two weekly episodes in the first season; then thirty-nine; then forty-five. By 1970 there were already over 250 episodes. Heck, Pat Troughton's final story was ten episodes in itself!

Heck, even by the end of season five there were 209 episodes.

Re:Not longest running (consecutive)?

[aderack]

I guess I should say that, in a sense, 2005 was the shortest season in that it had only thirteen episodes -- though the episodes were twice as long.

If you consider actual screen time, then it's probably not until the mid-'70s that Doctor Who catches up on Stargate.

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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[illectro]

Ever wonder what the Doctor Who christmas get together must be like? http://meems.imeem.com/Xfr8x3GL/video/OKZE6cfu/doc tor_who_christmas_party/

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[Larry Lightbulb]

Oh no they haven't!

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[grapeape]

Thanks for that...very funny!

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[illectro]

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/

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[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:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[otherniceman]

They also did a sketch where Christopher Eccleston goes home to tell his parents about his new job, and they are hardocre trekkers that have disowned him. Mother, fetch my phaser and make sure it isn't set to stun!

Re:They've skipped the Christmas Episode

[Anonymous Coward]

That's OK: stores had Chrismas stuff on sale in August again this year. It replaced the back-to-school displays.

They actually had to move some of the Christmas things to make room for the Halloween stuff, which itself was out for sale first week of September.

I find it disturbing to see Christmas decorations stacked next to the summer lawn mowers. Can't we enjoy summer? Can't we wait a bit for Christmas and maybe make it special? If it's a holiday season all year long, then it's no longer a holiday, is it?

Sigh. Everything has been reduced to a marketing season in this country. No day is ever just a day.

I thought Guiness breweries...

[stevetures]

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

[martinmarv]

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

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[nagora]

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

[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/), 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) and scroll down to where the Doctor Who episodes are listed.

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[zippthorne]

What makes him the 8th? or whatever? Who's to say he wasn't the first doctor?

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[swordgeek]

Chris Eccleston was the ninth, and David Tennant is the tenth. The official counting is according to the BBC itself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/guide.shtml

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[zippthorne]

It's a show about a time traveller. Just about any one of 'em could've been the first. Except where the "regeneration" has been explicitly shown.

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[swordgeek]

Well for starters, it's a fictional show, so the creators of the fiction are allowed to declare whatever they want. :-)

Secondly, I believe the regeneration has been shown in every case except for Chris Eccleston. In his case, we'll just have to fall back on rule #1: The writers said so!

Re:Christopher Eccleston played the Eighth Doctor

[Minwee]

I believe the regeneration has been shown in every case except for Chris Eccleston.

Which only proves my point. This Eccleston Doctor is really The Master.

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!" .

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

Re:Nitpick: it's "Hear, hear"

[AlzaF]

that is how it is pronounced in Scotland

Re:Nitpick: it's "Hear, hear"

[AlzaF]

its not my fault you can't understand my accent

Re:Nitpick: it's "Hear, hear"

[ExFCER]

Are you on dope?

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)

Re:Disqualified from consecutive??

[EvilIdler]

At least four regular actors in SG-1 are the same as first season - three team
members, and the guy who pushes the gate button :)

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:The Title of This Article...

[tehshen]

Are you some sort of grammar robot?

Re:The Title of This Article...

[Anonymous Coward]

no, what's on second...

Re:The Title of This Article...

[satoshi1]

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

Re:The Title of This Article...

[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!"

Re:The Title of This Article...

[A_Non_Moose]

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

Makes for a classic joke:

(insert Abbot and Costello routine)

A: who?
C: Dr.
A: Who
C: Dr.
A: Why?
C: Beclause.
Both: First place.

Heh.

(this post brought to you by 151 and Arizona peach tea, aka Son of a Peach)

Re:The Title of This Article...

[dacaldar]

Exactly. I couldn't wait to see what some Doctor did that helped him make the Guiness Book...

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:I'm a confused about this title...

[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'...

Re:I'm a confused about this title...

[Larry Lightbulb]

Though Shada did finally get made, based on the original script - BBC7 have just finished a broadcast and going by the dates I've got at http://www.radiolistings.co.uk/programmes/doctor_w ho___shada.html, it'll probably be on again by the end of the year.

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....

Re:Gap in the gap

[J_Darnley]

Thank the Doctor! I saw it, and it was crap.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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!"

Guieness

[c0d3r]

The Dr. Prescribed me Genuiness.

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

Re:I'm 40 days older than Dr Who.

[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:Premiere?!

[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.

Misread

[Edis Krad]

I read "Doctor who makes Guinness Book of World Records". And I was "Wow, what'd he do?!"

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.

Re:Longest currently running?

[Cassini2]

Maybe they mean Stargate SG-1 is the longest currently running consecutive Sci-Fi show?

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.... :)

"Doctor" who makes it in the Guiness book...

[daddymac]

I read the headline:
Doctor who Makes Guinness Book of World Records

I was wondering exactly what this Doctor did to make it in, then I read the summary and realized it was the TV show "Doctor Who" (notice I put quotes around it to imply "Doctor Who" is one concept, and has nothing to do with a doctor who did something extraordinary. Or is this about a doctor who actually, physically, out of sticks and mud, makes Guinness Book of World Records?

So the second season is premiering soon? Second season? Longest running scifi show? How long are the seasons, 20 years or something? To me 2 doesn't seem very record worthy.

(yes I realize what is on scifi channel is probably a remake or something, this is a joke)

(( yes I realize if you have to explain your jokes they are not that funny.))

Obligatory.

[crazyvas]

Doctor who?

Anybody else read this as:

[xx01dk]

[The] Doctor Who Makes Guiness [is in the] World Records

I swear that's how I read it at first. My eyes must be playing tricks on me.

Longevity Vaccine

[SMACX guy]

I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice.

Too bad stargate wins the american title.

[insomniac8400]

That of course is all that matters! Plus trying to link the 2005 doctor who to the old doctor who is complete trash. They are not the same show. LLSG!

Watching it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching it right now, and I hate to say it, but I prefer Eccleston as the Dr...

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.

Re:Haven't I seen that alien before

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's the other way around. Having watched every available
episode after they were all shown on ABC TV in Australia recently, it seems every other day we
were commenting on how the plots in many Dr Who stories written in the 60's & 70's
had very strange similarities to plots that were later shown in DS9, TNG and the like.

I have a funny feeling that Dr Who has been a little known (at least to Amerikans)
font of SF plots for several TV series in recent years. Don't even start me on the Back to the Future
trilogy (which I love): a crazy haired professor with a penchant for time travel machines
with a young companion - come on!

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:That's why we have quote signs

[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.

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.

Re:not not

[otherniceman]

By new you mean 1988 (Rememberance of the Daleks)right? That plunger can rip your face of :)

Re:not not

[brainburger]

I have just searched the whole discussion here and am delighted that no-one has said "Ooooh, of course Daleks are rubbish because they can't go up stairs", which is the single most, boring, predictable, irrelevant and untrue thing that anyone can say while discussing Dr Who. You came closest. Bear with me, I have something to get off my chest:

The thing is, Daleks don't need to go upstairs generally, because most of the environments they find themselves in don't have stairs. In fact, in the UK it is now law that all public buildings must have wheelchair access anyway. The 4th Dr used to mock them mercilessly for not being able to go upstairs, but then much later the 8th Dr was confounded to discover that they can. Even without going upstairs Daleks can easily defeat nearly any other race with their superior intellect, stamina, armour, weaponry, and of course their ability to travel in time, shared only by the Timelords.

In the new two series, the writers have been so aware of the stairs cliche that they have in my view overreacted by fundamentally changing Daleks from ground-trundling upturned dustbins (which is what we love them for) into essentially flying creatures. This is a shame, in my view. Down with the Daleks - down to the ground floor!

Re:not not

[eclectro]

In fact, in the UK it is now law that all public buildings must have wheelchair access anyway.

I think that pretty much sums it up. A law that makes it easier for Daleks to chase you.

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!

OT: Re:Guinness Book of Trivia

[pipingguy]

Ha! That reminded me of:

Now over to the sign of the marathon for incontinent people.

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.]

Eccleston did nót drop out!!

[Jerry Smith]

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. "

"Dropped out", that sounds like he quit because he felt it would harm his career (Swiebertje-effect anyone?). Because, 1) he's a recognised and outstanding classical actor already with a solid reputation, and 2) playing a Timelord does nót hurt ones career.
So: Eccleston BOOSTED it, and then let Tennant (same league by the way) take the helm.

Um. . .

[NetRAVEN5000]

I'd rather have Twilight Zone back. Dr. Who might be the longest running but it's definitely not the best. I only saw one episode, but. . . well there's a reason why I only saw one.

Re:Um. . .

[Sage Gaspar]

Did you see the 2002 Twilight Zone? Be careful what you wish for... duh-nuh-nuh-nuh-duh-nuh-nuh-nuh...

Re:Um. . .

[brainburger]

Which episode of Dr Who did you see? There is, of course, a huge library of old episodes to watch, with a great variety of styles and quality. - I do recommend you have another look. Try some of the Tom Baker ones. That is the period which is responsible for the special place that the series has in the hearts of Englishmen.

Re:Um. . .

[NetRAVEN5000]

Hmm, I didn't even know they made a 2002 Twilight Zone. . . I've only seen the originals they always play on SciFi.

From the website, though, it looks like they tried to throw a bunch of big names in there rather than try to make a good show.

This Means That...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's on first!

I think you can stop right there...

[nixkuroi]

You could have stopped at "Dr. Who Makes a Guiness" and I would have been delighted. It's Friday and I think the Dr. making me a guiness sounds just perfect. :)

Re:I think you can stop right there...

[Terminus32]

Guiness is pretty yuck, Stella Artois is where it's at :-)

Re:I think you can stop right there...

[haapi]

The Doctor has been known to be partial to ginger beer.

THE BEST SHOW ON TELEVISION EVER - PERIOD!

[Terminus32]

The only show worth watching on TV - i'm a HUUUUGE fan, love it with a passion! Bring back the Sontarans please Russel, thank you.

"Cult favorite"?

[ThePuceGuardian]

BBC's award-winning flagship show? The highest-budgeted scifi series the Beeb has ever produced?

Not that that's saying too much, mind. And not that these are positive things - the relaunch has ruined a rich legacy by slathering on a pile of dumbed-down chav crap - but at this point, who in Britain isn't in the 'cult'?

all ages

[fantomas]

man, what did you watch at school? we were crazy about Dr. Who at primary school... (even if we had to hide behind the sofa when the Cybermen came on) .. I've still got one of my school books from when I was six with a picture of John Pertwee being chased by Daleks :-) ... lots of my friends' kids are completely obsessed by it these days, that 15 year break (something like that) means it's now got a whole new kid fanbase!

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:Sorry, which season is that?

[meringuoid]

The whole point is that the show is 43 years old, so why pretend the other 26 series never happened in the numbering?

1) the format's totally different. Self-contained episodes, the occasional two-parter, no long serials.
2) the Time War is a continuity get-out-of-jail-free card of Crisis proportions. Almost anything established in the old days may be considered up for grabs.
3) most importantly, if you put a DVD boxset on the shelves saying 'Series 27' no bugger'll buy it because they think they'll need to have seen the previous 26.

overemotional

[Kombinat]

I wonder if I am the only one who finds the new series a little bit over-emotional? There are many scenes which touches a bit to much like in Fathers Day or Roses departure, are kids these day so raw that they need to use such dramatic hammer? Maybe I should try Prozac but the older, classic episodes werent that pathetic. Anyway I am happy BBC continued Dr.Who...

No, they were nuked with the omega device

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually.. the doctor set off the omega device.. which nuked all of the daleks and time lords in the vicinity. Considering it's power, it most likely took out the whole sector. Considering the galifray time is always 'real' then anyone 'there' can't regenerate, get away or otherwise get out of it.

No mention has been made of why all time lords were at one place at once time.
However, it is possible that since the 'war' was occuring.. they could be all there, all get nuked, and hence all 'lost' the war and no longer exist.

As we have captain jack wandering around in a stolen time craft it is obvious that the time machine technology has been duplicated elsewhere and the daleks and time lords are now a distance memory. At one point in history.. they were erased.. destroyed... and time moved on.

Hope this answers your question.

Doctor Who lonest ever

[dokhebi]

What Guinness forgot to mention, is that Doctor Who is the longest running fiction series that is not a soap opera. It's has more seasons that I Love Lucy or all of the Star Trek shows combined.

Just my $0.02 worth.

I mis-read the title to mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctor Who Makes Guinness Book of World Records... (finish the sentence by telling about this doctor who did indeed make it into the GBWR.)