Has Star Trek had more hours made for the screen than any other?

Thank you for pointing this out I did a google search to try and find all of the Trek audios, but I guess I did not dig deep enough. Still, I hope that more are produced in the future.

This is true, of course a couple of the TOS actors are no longer alive, and the others are quite a bit older now and their voices have probably changed, but it could be easily done from TNG onwards. That is, if the actors are willing to do it.

 

I reckon Paul's done about 130 CDs worth, between 50-75 minutes each. So that's coming close to seven season's
worth of Trek. Obviously Michael clocked up eleven seasons.

Even with Tom being a late convert to audio (but making up for it!) Up to July I think makes 48 episodes (roughly 2 TV seasons worth) so that's like 9 seasons. And there's at least three different projects on the go on top of that. So he might just equal Michael in terms of episodes; but they are half the length.

 

Does CSI count as science fiction, or just fictional science?

 

For the record, the total running time of all Dark Shadows TV shows and movie (including the 1991 12 episode remake) is about 544 hours (I can't find a running time for the unsuccessful 2005 WB pilot, so I didn't include it), whereas for Trek it's about 542, and that's close enough that the margin of error means it's basically a draw.

 

Well if we are talking franchises than yes ST does, DW (and spin offs TW, SJA, K9 & Company) clock in somewhere around the 440 hours mark.

But you could make an argument that DW has the record for a single Sci-Fi show. Despite all the cast changes, it has one thing that has remaind constant the title character, The Doctor.

 

'

Well, the original Doctor Who ran for 26 years, and that is a record as far as I know. However, from a production standpoint, the 63-89 show, and the 2005 - Present show, are two different series. The latter is really a 'sequel' to the original, and set in the same continuity.

 

I would disagree and say the 2005- present is a continuation. It's essential the same show it was back cancelled in (or indefinate hiatus as Auntie Beeb might say). The story of alien who travels throught time and space with one or more companions fighting evil.

But we could be arguing semantics over the terms continuation and sequel

 

Is there a difference? Most sequels are continuations. The word "sequel" simply means "what follows."

Granted, though, television sequels are generally "next generation" sort of affairs or spinoffs in different settings. Doctor Who is unusual in that the "next generation" of the lead character is the same lead character.

The term I prefer for a show like the new Doctor Who is "revival series." I also use that term for the '88 Mission: Impossible, which was straight up just starting the series back up again 15 years later with the same lead and a new supporting cast.

 

^Which is why I said it was a continuation. As you say in TV land we tend to thing of sequels as TNG type affairs.

 

But a continuation is still a type of sequel, even if not all sequels are direct continuations.

I mean, it would be disingenuous to say that the new Doctor Who is just the same production returning after an extremely long hiatus. It's made by a whole new production team and isn't even shot in the same country. In every sense except story continuity, it's a new and separate series. So it's a sequel, a revival, and a continuation.

 

New Dr Who is to old Dr Who as TNG is to TOS. Same world, different creative approach.

 

^ Absolutely. They share a overarcing continuity, but they are independent entities.

 

Except they're not independant of one another. I'm sure the behind the scenes show DW: Confidnetial mentioned several times that the new show was considered a continuation. Previous incarnations of the Doctor from the 1963-1989, 95 era have been mentioned or seen. i.e. The Fifth Doctor in the minisode "Time Crash", and what about "The Day of the Doctor" where we see the current Doctor, eleven previous incarnations and one future. I don't get how they can spell it out any more clearly that this show continues on from the 1963-1989, 95 era.

As from a creative approach, I suspect an episode from 1983 would have a different creative approach to one from 1963. Times and tastes change and TV shows like anything must move with the times.

 

New Star Trek isn't independent of old ST either. DeForest Kelley cameoed as McCoy in the TNG pilot, and its second episode was a sequel to a TOS episode. The modern Trek shows and movies brought back every lead character from the original series except Uhura, as well as Sarek, Kor, Kang, Koloth, Arne Darvin, Zefrem Cochrane (recast), etc. The new shows focused on new crews and ships (or stations), but they were direct continuations of the same universe and continuity.

I don't know why you're treating this as either/or. A sequel is, by definition, a continuation of its original. If it weren't meant to be a followup on the same reality and events, we wouldn't call it a sequel. If a show revives an old concept but isn't a continuation of the same reality, then we call it a reboot, like Battlestar Galactica.

Well, for the most part. There are a few out-of-continuity sequels, like Halloween III. But as a rule, sequels are continuations and continuations are sequels. So there's really nothing to argue over.

 

Both TNG and New Who are sequels and continuations of their predecessor series. They are both set in the same universe and continuity of the previous shows. TNG and other Trek's, had numerous references to each-other and the TOS crew, as well as cameos and guest appearances by major and minor characters, so there is no doubt that they are all set in the universe. The DS9 episode 'Trials and Tibble-ations' is a good example of how they are all the same world. The new Doctor Who is different, in that it is both set in the same continuity as the 63 - 89 show, but features the same lead character.

Major and minor characters like Kirk and Spock, have made special appearances alongside the other crews, but each series generally has a different main cast. This doesn't necessarily make either any more or less of a 'sequel' as they are both new and separate productions from the original, and continue the story and world of their originals, but because Who has the same main lead, it is perhaps a bit closer to its original in terms of the story. From a production standpoint, TNG is a bit closer to the original, because it was filmed in the same place and had the same creative lead. Even the new Star Trek movies are part of the larger continuity, because they don't ignore the prime universe, so they aren't a total reboot.

 

It's been branded Series 1 onwards though, not Season 27 onwards.

End of the day though there's still 800 BBC produced episodes of Doctor Who.

 

There was another TV Western, The Virginian, which ran in 90-minute weekly installments for many years. I once read that James Drury and Doug McClure were therefore the most-filmed actors ever. Not sure whether that's true or ever was, but you may want to consider that.

Supposedly, the announcer, not used to such things, read some bumper bit as "And now the third half of The Virginian."

 

Sarah Jane Adventures and Torchwood both definitely count as part of Doctor Who, just as much as Voyager and Enterprise count for Star Trek. But everyone here is forgetting that Star Trek is *also* part of a MUCH MUCH bigger universe of shows that only really exist in the mind of an autistic child from the final episode of St. Elsewhere. So unless Doctor Who is *also* tied into that somehow (not impossible), Trek definitely wins, hands down.

 

Nevermind. Apparently, Doctor Who IS connected, which means the question is moot: Their SHARED universe with Star Trek would be, by definition, the exact same size.

For anyone who wonders what in the heck I'm talking about, click here.