Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Doctor Who Makes Guinness Book of World Records 227

Posted by Zonk
from the cue-the-music dept.
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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doctor Who Makes Guinness Book of World Records

Comments Filter:
  • Here Here (Score:5, Informative)

    by AlzaF (963971) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:05PM (#16251673)
    A prime example of traditional great british entertainment
    • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AceCaseOR (594637)
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

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

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

        Stargate doesn't even come close to making that cut, with only 10 years for SG1 an
        • It was either some accounting error or that by winning generally they got disqualified from winning more specific contests.
        • by Salsaman (141471)
          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.

        • by 1u3hr (530656)
          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

    • 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.


    • 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.

  • by fatboy (6851) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:05PM (#16251683)
    Better than Tom Baker, but not by much :) I just loved what he did with the character.
    • by theantix (466036)
      I never saw the old series but fell in love with the first new one last year. This will betray my ignorance at the time of the show's history but I was totally shocked that they replaced Eccleston. I tried to Tennant a chance, I really did. I watched all of the episodes of the most recent series and was completely unimpressed, by the season finale I felt that the quality of the show has degraded to a point where I'm just not interested in watching any more of it. Eccleston brought a certain joy and opti
      • 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.
    • by HFXPro (581079) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:13PM (#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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 1u3hr (530656)
        r. A doctor who seemed happy go lucky, yet at any minute could show signs of a nervous breakdown or go psycotic. I am not that impressed with the new guy. His rendition of the doctor is not nearly as good. It seems it is played two happily, rather then a mix of happiness, sadness, depression, and wisdom gained from so many years of existance.

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kris_B_04 (883011)
      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by thrashaholic (995412)
      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
  • by krell (896769) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:06PM (#16251689) Journal
    "Timelord. Brewer. Patriot".
  • Enough of that ST:TOS head. Replace it with the TARDIS!
    • by AceCaseOR (594637)
      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.
      • 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?

        • by AceCaseOR (594637)
          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... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cybert4 (994278) *
    ...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.
    • 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...

      • 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.
  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:17PM (#16251885) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • by grapeape (137008) <mpope7 AT kc DOT rr DOT com> on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:40PM (#16252247) Homepage
      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.

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

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

    • by drsquare (530038)
      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.
  • Not having seen much of the original series, in the new series, the Doctor is the last of the Time Lords, after a Time War wiped them out (along with the Daleks). When in time did this occur, because it seems that in all time periods, people seem to know that the Daleks were wiped out? Do the time lords age chronologically in time? What year was their planet destroyed? Having the time lords exist in our linear time doesn't make much sense then, if they've "always never existed" (which is what it seems l
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kentrel (526003)
      Valid questions, but it's a kid's show - I wouldn't overthink it.
      • by fm6 (162816)
        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!
    • by asuffield (111848)
      Canon says that each TARDIS represents an independent, self-consistant timeline (which shouldn't be violated because it tends to kill you and anybody in your immediate vicinity, and usually can't be violated because approaching an origin point that lies within your own historic timeline requires infinite energy, although special circumstances can cause weirder stuff to happen) - there is no "global" timeline per se, and the universe as a whole can (and often does) become a tangled inexplicable mess. The new
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by FrontalLobe (897758)
      To answer some of the questions here:

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

      As far as the Time Lords regenerating after the time war, they were obviously killed in a way that their bodies could not support regeneration. Time Lords have two hearts. If one fails, the other heart keeps going and rearranges all the cells in their body. If they are hit wit
    • by Salsaman (141471)
      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.
  • by Siberwulf (921893) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#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.
    • by iabervon (1971)
      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.
  • by jimmichie (993747) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:34PM (#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.
  • 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?
  • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nebaz (453974)
      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)
      • by szyzyg (7313)
        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.
  • 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)
  • by commisaro (1007549) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:51PM (#16252451) Homepage
    ... is a dependant clause. It really needs to be finished. Doctor who makes Guinness Book of World Records... does what, exactly?
    • by tehshen (794722)
      Are you some sort of grammar robot?
    • by bbdd (733681)
      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!"

  • by ReverendLoki (663861) on Friday September 29, 2006 @04:52PM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by FrontalLobe (897758)
      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'...
  • 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....
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • by Tim Browse (9263)

      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.

  • 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.
  • 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!

  • by brainburger (792239) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @08:01AM (#16257495)
    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?

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.

Working...