Strangers in Space
@strangerscast.bsky.social
Podcasting about films and TV, music and politics - and of course, Doctor Who - so you don't have to
https://strangersinspace.weebly.com/links.html
https://strangersinspace.weebly.com/links.html
Heh, first episode at the new home will actually be tomorrow - so that'll be the big test! Looks like everything is showing here so far though. Not sure how far into the back catalogue it stretches mind you...
December 1, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Heh, first episode at the new home will actually be tomorrow - so that'll be the big test! Looks like everything is showing here so far though. Not sure how far into the back catalogue it stretches mind you...
Here's the Liverpool Echo and Newcastle Chronicle, both dated 23rd November 1963, each giving the story title as The Tribe of Gum. They must have got that from somewhere, and given that no episode had even been broadcast at this point, it can only have been from a BBC information pack.
November 30, 2025 at 7:06 PM
Here's the Liverpool Echo and Newcastle Chronicle, both dated 23rd November 1963, each giving the story title as The Tribe of Gum. They must have got that from somewhere, and given that no episode had even been broadcast at this point, it can only have been from a BBC information pack.
Now, I completely agree that the rule of precedence suggests the story has now been renamed An Unearthly Child (and that's wat I call it), but on the 23rd of November 1963, if that story had any official, public title at all, it was The Tribe of Gum.
November 30, 2025 at 7:01 PM
Now, I completely agree that the rule of precedence suggests the story has now been renamed An Unearthly Child (and that's wat I call it), but on the 23rd of November 1963, if that story had any official, public title at all, it was The Tribe of Gum.
And as they never publicised it as 100,000 BC or An Unearthly Child (as a serial rather than just the episode), then there's no way we should regard the story as being called either of those things. And yet we do (and DWM even goes for the former).
November 30, 2025 at 7:00 PM
And as they never publicised it as 100,000 BC or An Unearthly Child (as a serial rather than just the episode), then there's no way we should regard the story as being called either of those things. And yet we do (and DWM even goes for the former).
This was a newspaper listing, so must have come from the BBC. It was also intended for the public, so trumps any production paperwork (which by definition wasn't meant for the public). And so The Tribe of Gum was, at least at one point, what the BBC intended that first story to be called.
November 30, 2025 at 6:59 PM
This was a newspaper listing, so must have come from the BBC. It was also intended for the public, so trumps any production paperwork (which by definition wasn't meant for the public). And so The Tribe of Gum was, at least at one point, what the BBC intended that first story to be called.
The only evidence I've ever seen to suggest the BBC promoting early Doctor Who using umbrella titles for serials rather than simply the individual episode titles, was a newspaper listing giving the first serial as The Tribe of Gum.
November 30, 2025 at 6:58 PM
The only evidence I've ever seen to suggest the BBC promoting early Doctor Who using umbrella titles for serials rather than simply the individual episode titles, was a newspaper listing giving the first serial as The Tribe of Gum.
This is the kind of stuff I find quite interesting. And also frustrating! Because I think fans have a tendency to place too much importance over certain evidence at the expense of what I think sometimes is more compelling. For example (this one's a bit of a thing for me):
November 30, 2025 at 6:57 PM
This is the kind of stuff I find quite interesting. And also frustrating! Because I think fans have a tendency to place too much importance over certain evidence at the expense of what I think sometimes is more compelling. For example (this one's a bit of a thing for me):
That makes sense. And then subsequent fans stuck with season rather than series because that had already bedded in (maybe a bit like the use of letters rather than numbers in Blakes 7?).
November 30, 2025 at 6:55 PM
That makes sense. And then subsequent fans stuck with season rather than series because that had already bedded in (maybe a bit like the use of letters rather than numbers in Blakes 7?).
Two randomly chosen examples for instance; Wiki listing the episodes for US series Alias and UK series Casualty. Note which one is separated into seasons and which is in series:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...
November 30, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Two randomly chosen examples for instance; Wiki listing the episodes for US series Alias and UK series Casualty. Note which one is separated into seasons and which is in series:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...
But yes, US TV make seasons of things, and in the UK we make programmes by the series. Which makes the UK version confusing as you can use series as a synonym for programme, but not season - so once again the Americans' more straightforward version makes more sense.
November 30, 2025 at 6:49 PM
But yes, US TV make seasons of things, and in the UK we make programmes by the series. Which makes the UK version confusing as you can use series as a synonym for programme, but not season - so once again the Americans' more straightforward version makes more sense.
UK TV paperwork always works in terms of series rather than season though, and Doctor Who (or things as spoken about by Who fans) tends to be the only one where guidebooks have used season rather than series. I'm sure I read once this was because of the influence of US fans on early categorisation.
November 30, 2025 at 6:47 PM
UK TV paperwork always works in terms of series rather than season though, and Doctor Who (or things as spoken about by Who fans) tends to be the only one where guidebooks have used season rather than series. I'm sure I read once this was because of the influence of US fans on early categorisation.
So a question: have the BBC themselves ever referred to Blakes 7 in terms of Series A, B and so on in *public*? Or only on production paperwork? Because if it's the latter, then as members of the public we really ought to go with the Series 1, 2 and so on version
November 30, 2025 at 5:30 PM
So a question: have the BBC themselves ever referred to Blakes 7 in terms of Series A, B and so on in *public*? Or only on production paperwork? Because if it's the latter, then as members of the public we really ought to go with the Series 1, 2 and so on version
Mind you, the rule of precedence suggests that whatever the most recent version of how something is presented (especially in public) absolutely trumps how something might have been referred to - especially behind the scenes - back in the day, and here's how the BBC refer to it now
November 30, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Mind you, the rule of precedence suggests that whatever the most recent version of how something is presented (especially in public) absolutely trumps how something might have been referred to - especially behind the scenes - back in the day, and here's how the BBC refer to it now
Not onscreen though! And onscreen definitely takes precedence
November 30, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Not onscreen though! And onscreen definitely takes precedence
I never did grow up with it being like that though, it's something I've only seen more recently. Mind you I'm not a B7 fan, so I perhaps just didn't notice.
Although even I know it's Blakes 7 not Blake's 7
Although even I know it's Blakes 7 not Blake's 7
November 30, 2025 at 4:17 PM
I never did grow up with it being like that though, it's something I've only seen more recently. Mind you I'm not a B7 fan, so I perhaps just didn't notice.
Although even I know it's Blakes 7 not Blake's 7
Although even I know it's Blakes 7 not Blake's 7
I've always genuinely been confused by this
November 30, 2025 at 11:33 AM
I've always genuinely been confused by this
Why though? I've never understood this. It's never been Series B to the BBC as far as I'm aware. Didn't it come from some fan book in the first place? IN which case, why would you follow the naming from the fan book rather than from the corporation that made it...?
November 30, 2025 at 11:32 AM
Why though? I've never understood this. It's never been Series B to the BBC as far as I'm aware. Didn't it come from some fan book in the first place? IN which case, why would you follow the naming from the fan book rather than from the corporation that made it...?
