What will the last 20th century show standing be?

[Chris3123]

Still, I like the idea of having Munch replace Lt. Van Buren.

I hope you didn't just post a spoiler without using the spoiler code.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

South Park probably stands the best chance of surviving because it is relatively cheap to produce and Parker and Stone have no interest in stopping it.

Furthermore, while Family Guy & The Simpsons both have large voice casts to deal with, on South Park, Parker & Stone do nearly all of the voices themselves. So, so long as Parker & Stone are around and want to keep doing it, the only thing that could ever stop the show is if the ratings somehow get so bad that Comedy Central has no choice but to cancel it. (And considering how well the show has endured over the years, I think that if Comedy Central ever has to resort to that, it will probably be because the show has suffered such a meteoric drop in quality that it will deserve to be put out of its misery.)

Meanwhile, you're all forgetting about this little show called Saturday Night Live that's been going strong since the mid-70s.

I didn't forget. I even mentioned it 1st on the 2nd page of the thread. And for the record, while I think Family Guy will probably be the last one standing of the 6 in the original poll; ultimately, I think SNL & Doctor Who will bury them all!

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Still, I like the idea of having Munch replace Lt. Van Buren.

I hope you didn't just post a spoiler without using the spoiler code.

No. No spoilers. I haven't read anything about what will happen to Lt. Van Buren. But still, it looks pretty grim to anyone watching the series right now. The fact that they've spent an uncharacteristic amount of time focusing on her subplot, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the mysteries-of-the-week, would indicate that they don't plan on the character being around much longer. Even if she manages to pull through the cancer, they might still have her quit the force so she can spend more time with her family. Moreover, the fact that she's been on the show for 17 years probably means she's making a lot of money and will probably be the next thing to go if they need to cut the budget again. (Frankly, I'm surprised that Jack McCoy is still around. I was sure that they were setting him up to lose his reelection campaign last year.)

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

The problem is that, legally, the current Doctor Who is a separate television program than the original; they merely share a name. Now, certainly, they feature the same main character and are set in the same continuity, but they are still legally separate productions. And the current series began in 2005, whilst the original series ended in 1989.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "legality" from. I say it's the same programme, that just had a bit of a break.

 

[Sci]

The problem is that, legally, the current Doctor Who is a separate television program than the original; they merely share a name. Now, certainly, they feature the same main character and are set in the same continuity, but they are still legally separate productions. And the current series began in 2005, whilst the original series ended in 1989.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "legality" from. I say it's the same programme, that just had a bit of a break.

It's my understanding that it has a completely different production code, is being produced by a completely different entity within the BBC (BBC Wales rather than BBC One), has a completely different set of producers and writers and cast.

In short, really, I don't see how you can rationally argue they're the same program.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

It's my understanding that it has a completely different production code, is being produced by a completely different entity within the BBC (BBC Wales rather than BBC One), has a completely different set of producers and writers and cast.

In short, really, I don't see how you can rationally argue they're the same program.

Your argument is based around completely spurious behind-the-scenes information which should have no bearing on the viewers' perception of the show. When I turn on the tv, the show is still called "Doctor Who", has the same theme music, is still about the same character, is not a remake or reboot, but a continuation. And believe it or not, the same producers and writers and cast didn't feature during the entirety of the first 26 years before it took its little break either - so the notion that different people are making it now doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things.

 

[Count Zero]

Also, wasn't it officially just 'on hiatus' and never cancelled?

 

[Sci]

It's my understanding that it has a completely different production code, is being produced by a completely different entity within the BBC (BBC Wales rather than BBC One), has a completely different set of producers and writers and cast.

In short, really, I don't see how you can rationally argue they're the same program.

Your argument is based around completely spurious behind-the-scenes information which should have no bearing on the viewers' perception of the show. When I turn on the tv, the show is still called "Doctor Who", has the same theme music, is still about the same character, is not a remake or reboot, but a continuation.

So I take it that Get Smart (1995) was the same television program as Get Smart (1965-1970)? After all, it had the same name, same theme music, was about the same character (and featured the same actor playing him), and was not a remake or reboot but a continuation.

 

[Chris3123]

Still, I like the idea of having Munch replace Lt. Van Buren.

I hope you didn't just post a spoiler without using the spoiler code.

No. No spoilers. I haven't read anything about what will happen to Lt. Van Buren.

Oh, good. Sorry about that. It's a pet peeve of mine, people posting spoilers without warning.

But still, it looks pretty grim to anyone watching the series right now. The fact that they've spent an uncharacteristic amount of time focusing on her subplot, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the mysteries-of-the-week, would indicate that they don't plan on the character being around much longer. Even if she manages to pull through the cancer, they might still have her quit the force so she can spend more time with her family.

Indeed. I've been thinking the very same thing.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

So I take it that Get Smart (1995) was the same television program as Get Smart (1965-1970)? After all, it had the same name, same theme music, was about the same character (and featured the same actor playing him), and was not a remake or reboot but a continuation.

As I'm unfamiliar with the programme, I can't help you with that, I'm afraid. Sorry. Not sure what it's got to do with the Doctor Who question though.

 

[od0_ital]

I'd say L&O, just 'cause, eventually, The Simpsons will cost too much. There's a story every couple of years about the voice cast gettin' raises, while L&O rotates the cast, keepin' costs down.

 

[Daneel]

I'd say The Simpsons, but any of those cartoons are good candidates.

As for Law & Order, I was actually expecting this season to be the last, but according to NBC Entertainment chief Angela Bromstad, the network plans to renew it for a 21st season. So who knows when it will actually end?

 

[od0_ital]

^

It'll get canceled the day after Dick Wolfe dies.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I voted for L&O.

I think SVU will last too, but since they started after L&O, L&O gets my vote.

 

[Sci]

So I take it that Get Smart (1995) was the same television program as Get Smart (1965-1970)? After all, it had the same name, same theme music, was about the same character (and featured the same actor playing him), and was not a remake or reboot but a continuation.

As I'm unfamiliar with the programme, I can't help you with that, I'm afraid.

Familiarity is unnecessary; that's why I linked to Wikipedia.

But, for the record: Get Smart was a famous American situation comedy that parodied spy fiction, particularly the James Bond films, that aired from 1965 to 1970, starring actor Don Addams as Agent Maxwell Smart. In 1995, a revival was produced, set 25 years later and starring Andy Dick as Max's son, and featuring Addams playing Max as a senior agent. It, too, was called Get Smart.

Now, by your logic, the 1995 series was actually the same television program as the 1965 series. After all, they shared the same name, were set in the same continuity, and featured the same character.

Sorry. Not sure what it's got to do with the Doctor Who question though.

It's called a "comparison."

Now, are you going to claim that the 1995 series is the same program as the 1965 series?

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

It's called a "comparison."

Now, are you going to claim that the 1995 series is the same program as the 1965 series?

Why would I want to claim that? I have no interest in Get Smart.

It's an irrelevant comparison as far as I'm concerned. There are no physical laws of television that have to be obeyed by all shows. Anyway, I don't want an argument - it seems to be important to you to view Doctor Who as being two separate shows - so go right ahead.

 

[I am not Spock]

The Simpsons will probably keep going for another 20 years. Although it hasn't been very good for a decade now. They seem more concerned with longevity awards these days than with pushing the comedy envelope. Seriously, what will stop the Simpsons? If the cast retire, or die, perhaps. Even if the show gets canned tomorrow, there will be a Simpsons episode airing somewhere in the world for every day for the rest of eternity.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

As much as I hate to say it (largely because I think the show should have ended last millennium), I think The Simpsons will easily outlast all of the available options. Law & Order is going to end soon and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit will end as soon as Chistopher Meloni's and Mariska Hargitay's contracts expire. The rest don't stand a chance.

But Doctor Who will win in the end.