Slashdot Mirror
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. "
Better than Tom Baker, but not by much :) I just loved what he did with the character.
--fatboy
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?
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
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.
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.
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)
-FL
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.