Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I also think that Doctor Who is a bit crazy with its time period. I think that when you time-travel to a point in the future that's further ahead than the earliest known historical events are to the past, you're not really travelling to a year, you're traveling to a generic FUUUUTUUUUUREEEEEEE! Still, it's got plenty of charm to get a free ticket out of things like that, as Pratchett himself admits.
That said, I'm pretty sure if Pratchett actually attacked Doctor Who he would come out winner. Yes, with all of the doctors. Well, not at once.
That said, I'm pretty sure if Pratchett actually attacked Doctor Who he would come out winner. Yes, with all of the doctors. Well, not at once.
Well I understand his frustration, especially in the latest episodes, some elements are illogical, for instance:
On another note, I find it sadly ironic how
Still gonna continue watching though
if you're hunting an angel whose only weakness is that it stops when being seen, why on Earth would you bring plenty of guns and only a handful of torchlight instead of bringing tons of spotlight and strapping yourself with thousands of tiny creatures with eyes so that even if you're not looking, something else is looking at the angel(s) at all time ?
On another note, I find it sadly ironic how
in the 1996 movie's commentary, they describe the tiny 2 seconds kiss as being their main regret about the movie's story whereas in the new series, he frenched all of his companions and several other characters too.
Still gonna continue watching though
Opinion isn't fact, saying something IS good (and yes I like BSG) doesn't make it so, same with Doctor who. You think it needs to die, I think the opposite.LANCE420 said:
It's fun for me, it's not too preachy and up it's own ass with constant moral dilemmas and such.
As long as people watch a show, it has no need to die. I liked Farscape, didn't like Lexx so much, but they are a different form of science fiction, with different kinds of stories.
Good Point Made here ^. Also, If you read "The Science of Discworld" You will learn ALOT about how both discworld and "roundworld" (aka earth) Works. It kinda does a chapter of story set in the fictional world and then the next chapter more or less explaining why and how it happens, and the why and how of how our real-world equivalent works.AboveUp said:
Also, Commander Vimes was just doing his job, Its nice to see The watch pulled out of decline
This reminds me of my dad's opinion on Star Wars. He says that while Star Wars may be entertaining, it's not really scientific in its "sci-fi"ness in the way that many books he likes are. Many things in Star Wars have little relation to real world technology, whereas the things my dad likes tend to be more speculative science fiction, wherethe cool technology is based on modern theory.Susan Arendt said:
If anyone has grounds to complain about the writing/storytelling of Dr. Who, I'd say Terry Pratchett qualifies. He may write silly fantasy novels, but at least his fictional universe is fairly consistent to its own rules. Dr. Who seems to bend and shift from episode to episode, just so they can fit something into the story.
The funny thing about this scrap of criticism is that Pratchett probably can leave his brain on a hook at the door. Yet he's the one complaining about having to do it. Yes, Doctor Who is pure entertainment. It is not a story of "functional magic" as TV Tropes might call it, but rather a series of excuses for the things that occur. However, these excuses are completely justified within the Doctor Who universe. The show is just a rare example of a fictional world where the protagonist is, quite literally, capable of anything.
Now, for Pratchett this might come across as a bit of a case of "Boring Invincible Hero", to evoke another trope, but the Doctor's limits are there in the show, they're just not in the technology, but rather in his ideas. Yes, the Doctor is a genius. He's lived for more than nine hundred years and still has a youthful mind and a spring in his step. The drawback of this is his insanity, which seems to be, ironically enough, the thing that Pratchett's missed in his comments or his frustration.
The Doctor's flaw is in his ideas. The Doctor Who series has always cast humans as a kind of "creative" species, made for dealing very well with emergency situations. This is why the Doctor needs a human companion, and on the occasion where he has none he often ends up in hot water - they fill in the massive hole in his problem-solving. That is, common sense, which is something most mad geniuses don't have.
Every episode of the modern series, in one way or another, exploits this limitation of ideas to propose a challenge to the Doctor and create much of the tension. Yes, he usually wins, but not without help. And it is that limit that you have to look for to see the show's real depth, which is a bit more subtle than the Doctor's antics and all the superficial technological wonders that are just there to be cool.
Doctor Who takes a leaf from Shakespeare's book in the sense that its themes are more universal than specific to the setting, and it is that which makes it different from most sci-fi. The best of sci-fi often investigates "special themes" of the future, which humans do not have to deal with in the current era. Doctor Who shares more in common with "low media" in that it is about looking at human pain, the struggle, and whether the Doctor likes this or not, the concepts of "good" and "evil" (something we've seen in films like Lord of the Rings). But not all sci-fi has to be high culture, and not all of it has to look into strange and alienating themes.
Doctor Who is a show about humanity, even if the central character is an alien, and in this way it has great value. It should not be discounted as a science fiction story simply because it has more common, modern themes than futuristic ones - the science fiction is there, but simply used as a backdrop and framework for the classical challenge. The Doctor uses science to solve problems, not magic, so we cannot class it as fantasy. That would simply please Pratchett's ego rather than solve the debate or be fair to the show, which remains a brilliant example of good television.
Now, for Pratchett this might come across as a bit of a case of "Boring Invincible Hero", to evoke another trope, but the Doctor's limits are there in the show, they're just not in the technology, but rather in his ideas. Yes, the Doctor is a genius. He's lived for more than nine hundred years and still has a youthful mind and a spring in his step. The drawback of this is his insanity, which seems to be, ironically enough, the thing that Pratchett's missed in his comments or his frustration.
The Doctor's flaw is in his ideas. The Doctor Who series has always cast humans as a kind of "creative" species, made for dealing very well with emergency situations. This is why the Doctor needs a human companion, and on the occasion where he has none he often ends up in hot water - they fill in the massive hole in his problem-solving. That is, common sense, which is something most mad geniuses don't have.
Every episode of the modern series, in one way or another, exploits this limitation of ideas to propose a challenge to the Doctor and create much of the tension. Yes, he usually wins, but not without help. And it is that limit that you have to look for to see the show's real depth, which is a bit more subtle than the Doctor's antics and all the superficial technological wonders that are just there to be cool.
Doctor Who takes a leaf from Shakespeare's book in the sense that its themes are more universal than specific to the setting, and it is that which makes it different from most sci-fi. The best of sci-fi often investigates "special themes" of the future, which humans do not have to deal with in the current era. Doctor Who shares more in common with "low media" in that it is about looking at human pain, the struggle, and whether the Doctor likes this or not, the concepts of "good" and "evil" (something we've seen in films like Lord of the Rings). But not all sci-fi has to be high culture, and not all of it has to look into strange and alienating themes.
Doctor Who is a show about humanity, even if the central character is an alien, and in this way it has great value. It should not be discounted as a science fiction story simply because it has more common, modern themes than futuristic ones - the science fiction is there, but simply used as a backdrop and framework for the classical challenge. The Doctor uses science to solve problems, not magic, so we cannot class it as fantasy. That would simply please Pratchett's ego rather than solve the debate or be fair to the show, which remains a brilliant example of good television.
My problem with this series is that Moffat's writing is aimed at 12 year olds and so the acting and directing goes that way too, there's no subtlty anymore, nothing to think about, everything's too obvious and predictable
I kind of like Doctor Who, though there are always lots of nagging little things that irritate me. I'm disappointed by the amount of running around that goes on in every episode. Tennant's doctor seriously got on my nerves with his continuous farting around and goofy behaviour. His and Billie Piper's on-screen grab assery was nearly intolerable.
Then there are the serious bouts of cheesiness with hamper otherwise excellent episodes. I watched the first episode of the new series the other day. I really liked the new doctor, even if he looks like he should be in an indy band. I liked the plot too. Heck, I even liked the sidekick. But then it ends on some seriously cheesy moment where Dr Who berates a giant space eye. It was shit. The alien looked shit, the Doctor was talking shit. That scene was utter shit.
Then there are the serious bouts of cheesiness with hamper otherwise excellent episodes. I watched the first episode of the new series the other day. I really liked the new doctor, even if he looks like he should be in an indy band. I liked the plot too. Heck, I even liked the sidekick. But then it ends on some seriously cheesy moment where Dr Who berates a giant space eye. It was shit. The alien looked shit, the Doctor was talking shit. That scene was utter shit.
...Has this guy ever watched sci-fi? They've been doing those things since the original star trek.
So we have the Escapist reporting on an article in the Guardian reporting on an article in SFX reporting on the opinions of an author with early onset senile dementia. Okay, just roll with it...
And there was a nice bit in the otherwise dismal episode a couple of weeks ago...
And has always been.
Sometimes when you break those old laws, you get something innovative.
The Doctor is not a detective. I'd go out on a limb and say he's more like a superhero. But with a cursory glance at any Doctor Who fan forum you would see no end to the number of fans making stabs at the solutions to both specific cliffhangers and more general questions about the mythology of the Doctor.
And there was a nice bit in the otherwise dismal episode a couple of weeks ago...
when he suddenly realises, quite late, that since the alien race that used to live on this planet had two heads... why do their statues have just the one head each? OMG weeping angels! The fact that they had had two heads had been introduced minutes before that, so a sharp-witted viewer might have spotted the inconsistency before the Doctor did.
Yep, even the most die-hard fan is frequently frustrated by the overuse of that particular narrative device.
Luckily for you, Terry, it's not.
So basically, "ignore everything I just said; Doctor Who is great and so what if the Doctor is a deus ex machina?"
Space travel by cannon is completely feasible. The whole thing is just increasing something's speed to where it will achieve escape velocity. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull"]Gerard Bull[/a] was working on such a cannon for much of his life.veloper said:
Now, if you are talking interstellar travel, well, we don't know how to do that with rockets either. Interplanetary travel would probably be somewhat more difficult with cannons than with rockets but it should be possible.
wildpeaks said:Well I understand his frustration, especially in the latest episodes, some elements are illogical, for instance:
if you're hunting an angel whose only weakness is that it stops when being seen, why on Earth would you bring plenty of guns and only a handful of torchlight instead of bringing tons of spotlight and strapping yourself with thousands of tiny creatures with eyes so that even if you're not looking, something else is looking at the angel(s) at all time ?
On another note, I find it sadly ironic how
in the 1996 movie's commentary, they describe the tiny 2 seconds kiss as being their main regret about the movie's story whereas in the new series, he frenched all of his companions and several other characters too.
Still gonna continue watching though
Remember they did think it was just the one angel in the beginning of the episode, though
No doubt Pratchett. But it allows them to spin some entertaining stories right? You said it yourself.
I died alittle inside when I realized there is no sound in space. No more pew-pew.
I died alittle inside when I realized there is no sound in space. No more pew-pew.
Wait, Neil Gaiman is doing an episode of Doctor Who? The same Neil Gaiman responsible for The Sandman and the Neverwhere books? ...Excuse me while I change my pants.Spaceman_Spiff said:
For the most part I agree, and think that simply because he writes fantasy books doesn't mean he's not allowed to have an opinion on the ridiculousness of other's writing.
[small]Please don't ban me[/small]
Susan Arendt said:
*cough cough*Logan Westbrook said:
[small]Please don't ban me[/small]
If you compare his original blog on http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/05/03/guest-blog-terry-pratchett-on-doctor-who/ to the Guardian article you can see it's carefully edited to leave out quite a few of the good things Terry has to say about Dr. Who.
Also if you take into account the fact that he's guest editor for SFX this month it's not random that's he commenting on Britain's hottest sci-fi(?) program. It's in no way as if he's suddenly taking a poke in the press.
P.S: When the late great Douglas Adams (who used to write for Dr. Who) had aliens move a building to a desolate planet he had it crash there properly.
Also if you take into account the fact that he's guest editor for SFX this month it's not random that's he commenting on Britain's hottest sci-fi(?) program. It's in no way as if he's suddenly taking a poke in the press.
P.S: When the late great Douglas Adams (who used to write for Dr. Who) had aliens move a building to a desolate planet he had it crash there properly.
I have to go with Pratchett on this one, I regularly shout at the screen when I watch it. I mean it's still fun, but it irks me how they first point out the holes in the science and then cover them up with either an explanation that doesn't work or an explanation that you wouldn't understand what's behind it.
Your right that opinions aren't fact, but I never made the distinction.chozo_hybrid said:
I disagree, Lexx, Farscape, and Doctor Who all fall into the same category. Think about it, the shows are the same, but the characters and premises are different. They all explore different planets, each with it's own antagonist. I stated that it should go from my own artistic standpoint. If I was the intellectual owner of Doctor Who, it would have had three seasons and the first movie. After that, it's time for a new direction. Especially since the story seemed to close on the movie.
I think TP has a point. Ive felt, particularly in the more recent episodes, the Doctor has become a sort of all purpose Deux et Machina for whatever problems arise. Im getting a little tired of the Doctor facing up the alien challenge of the day and telling them that he is the last of his race and that the aliens had better watch out because he is a time lord and will kick their arse to last tuesday because he has done it a thousand times before. A little humility and vulnerability would add a bit more drama to to the series. Im also a bit tired of magic TARDIS golden fairy dust saving the day at the last moment. Its getting to be the equivalent of the time travel/alternate reality story-lines in Star Trek.
That being said I still love the series, that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved a little. Im also an avid reader of Pratchett.
That being said I still love the series, that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved a little. Im also an avid reader of Pratchett.