Dr. Who Is Now Officially The Most Successful Sci-Fi Show
- Thread starter DWF
- Start date
Not that I generally care about this forum, but I just wanted to chime in because this is a great example of lies, damn lies and statistics: rejiggering a definition so that you skew it towards the answer you want.It's useful to learn to recognize BS like this when it appears in other guises (politics, for instance) where it does a lot more damage.
Obviously, the money made by the whole range of any franchise, including movies, TV, books, video games, DVD sales, action figures, commemorative plates, etc, is the truest gauge of the success of any franchise. It's meaningless to single out TV from all the other media (unless that's part of your statistics-skewing agenda.) Why artificially separate out the story told by Star Trek's movies from the story told by the TV series? Star Wars' novels and video games do a lot to advance the whole story (and have done a better job than the movies have lately).
I would guess that Star Wars has got to be the champion of sci fi franchises. Lucas may be a shitty storyteller, but he sure knows how to squeeze the last dime out of his story.
There's also a bit of chicanery with it being a "single series" as it has had 11 lead changes, multiple producer/showrunners plus 15 year gaps in production and Doctor Who 2005 is referred to officially as "Series 1" and has none of the original people still employed (well, maybe a cameraman or sound guy or something...).
^Even that's not true. Mike Tucker (FX guy) and Graeme Harper (Director) have worked on both shows. Plus Stephen Moffat, Russel T. Davies, Marc Platt, Gary Russell, Mark Gatiss etc. have worked on WHO projects in the interim.
And Elisabeth Sladen not only is from the original show, but she has her own show!
And Elisabeth Sladen not only is from the original show, but she has her own show!
Not that I generally care about this forum, but I just wanted to chime in because this is a great example of lies, damn lies and statistics: rejiggering a definition so that you skew it towards the answer you want.
Obviously, the money made by the whole range of any franchise, including movies, TV, books, video games, DVD sales, action figures, commemorative plates, etc, is the truest gauge of the success of any franchise. It's meaningless to single out TV from all the other media (unless that's part of your statistics-skewing agenda.) Why artificially separate out the story told by Star Trek's movies from the story told by the TV series? Star Wars' novels and video games do a lot to advance the whole story (and have done a better job than the movies have lately).
I would guess that Star Wars has got to be the champion of sci fi franchises. Lucas may be a shitty storyteller, but he sure knows how to squeeze the last dime out of his story.
There's also a bit of chicanery with it being a "single series" as it has had 11 lead changes, multiple producer/showrunners plus 15 year gaps in production and Doctor Who 2005 is referred to officially as "Series 1" and has none of the original people still employed (well, maybe a cameraman or sound guy or something...).
But it's still called "Doctor Who" (as opposed to Star Trek, Star Trek The Next Generation, Star Trek Deep Space Nine) and is about the adventures of a renegade Time Lord travelling through time and space in a Type 40 Time Capsule as opposed to series set in the 23rd Century about the U.S.S Enterprise NCC 1701 then to the 24th Century about the U.S.S Voyager lost in the Delta Quadrant - each is different series that's part of a franchise.
And cast changes many shows have been recognised for their longevity. Law & Order was looking to knock off Gunsmoke for longest runnig drama despite the fact there wasn't a single actor there from when the show began.
Obviously, it will be very hard for many fans of other various sci-fi shows to accept the truth of Doctor Who's dominance. They will probably try and nitpick semantics, much like an attorney. Unfortunately, people tend to blind themselves to the facts in order to accept the world the way they want it. That's a shame, really. Doesn't change anything, though... 
Outside of the UK, is Doctor Who that popular?
Obviously, it will be very hard for many fans of other various sci-fi shows to accept the truth of Doctor Who's dominance. They will probably try and nitpick semantics, much like an attorney. Unfortunately, people tend to blind themselves to the facts in order to accept the world the way they want it. That's a shame, really. Doesn't change anything, though...
In my mind you do have to define the terms. I've never heard anyone argue that The Twilight Zone ran from 1954-2002 but yet that should be the case if you are going to accept Doctor Who as one contiguous series. I'm not even against Doctor Who's success but I think it shouldn't be because of "semantics" on the other end, "series" vs "franchise" and all that.
Well, who cares, it's a meaningless statistic anyway by an organization with increasingly little credibility anyway.
Heh, I don't necessarily believe that last line, but I figure if we can poison the well with "attorney" talk I would try my hand at doing it the other way.
I really do like Doctor Who so if its seen as successful it can't be a bad thing.Discussions like this remind me of penis size contests. 
"Most successful show" always depends on how you define "sucess" and "show". And it's certainly possible to define those two terms in a way that Doctor Who ends up the most successful show. Or you don't. But does it really matter anyway?
In any case, it's one of the most successful shows, no matter how you define "success" exactly.
"Most successful show" always depends on how you define "sucess" and "show". And it's certainly possible to define those two terms in a way that Doctor Who ends up the most successful show. Or you don't. But does it really matter anyway?
In any case, it's one of the most successful shows, no matter how you define "success" exactly.
And, honestly, I do. If a series or franchise has lasted that long, then it deserves the recognition. Of course, Twilight Zone is already in the Guiness Book, anyway, for exactly that reason.
Well, at least those two things we can agree on...
I would say that Star Trek and Doctor Who are merely the equivalent of each other from different countries. Trek would of course be known in even the furthest parts of commercialized Europe, I would imagine. But, also, Doctor Who started three years before Trek, and continued on television for twenty-years after it had already been canceled. Trek, in a new form, came back in '87 (two years before the Classic Doctor Who series ended) and lasted in various forms for about fifteen years. Then, 2005 hits, and that's when (aside from Paul McGann's outing, and the bazillion alternate media published) Doctor Who returned.
So, for me, they are simply flip-sides to the same coin. One is British/European. The other is American. And they are both insanely successful (that is, if you only measure success by commercial gain).
But, on the subject of the single most successful science fiction television series, Doctor Who trumps Star Trek on sheer weight of material and longevity. And that's why Guinness lists it that way...
I know Doctor Who is techinally one show but the revival in 2005 kind of makes me look at the show as 2 shows TOS/TNG lite.
I would say that Star Trek and Doctor Who are merely the equivalent of each other from different countries. Trek would of course be known in even the furthest parts of commercialized Europe, I would imagine. But, also, Doctor Who started three years before Trek, and continued on television for twenty-years after it had already been canceled. Trek, in a new form, came back in '87 (two years before the Classic Doctor Who series ended) and lasted in various forms for about fifteen years. Then, 2005 hits, and that's when (aside from Paul McGann's outing, and the bazillion alternate media published) Doctor Who returned.
So, for me, they are simply flip-sides to the same coin. One is British/European. The other is American. And they are both insanely successful (that is, if you only measure success by commercial gain).
But, on the subject of the single most successful science fiction television series, Doctor Who trumps Star Trek on sheer weight of material and longevity. And that's why Guinness lists it that way...
Yeah. ST and Who are just American/British equivalents of each other. And I love both!
Who is a franchise, too, though, c'mon guys. Torchwood? SJA? K9 And Company? (shudder)
I love Gregor! And his intelligent, talking dancing bear sidekick is a scene stealer if ever there was one.
Nah I hate the bear, he's so obviously the mary sue for the show's head writer Ruri Tomar Davieski
Hey! Just because there's a little romantic and sexual tension between Gregor and the bear doesn't mean you can start trashing the bear or the brilliant series writer! You may not think there's room for romance in the rocket but some fans do and the show needs to have a wider audience appeal in this day and age.
Similar threads
