Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[Ensiferum]

Doctor Who is better defined as "Science Fantasy" then Science Fiction. I think Pratchett would be more fair with it if he was aware of that.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I'm sorry, BSG is a good Sci-Fi show. Dr. Who was decent when they had the first and second actor Mr. blah bleedle and frank tagwhoever and only three dumb earth bimbos following him
But what are they on now? the 11th Who and the billionth bimbo? Want soft sci? Go with a good stable one, like Lexx or Farscape.

Some shows need to know when it's time to die.

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.

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.

Your right that opinions aren't fact, but I never made the distinction.

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.

You stated that something IS good, that sounds like a definite to me. Sorry, it's why I always put I think or something to do with it being my pov on it. Bad habit, sorry.

That's over-generalizing a bit don't you think? Not only that, but if every show only had about three seasons then we would run out of ideas for new shows, or would constantly have to get used to new characters all the time. Don't get me wrong, new things are fine, but what's wrong with a long series? Especially when it is changing all the time and has fun new stories and characters pop up now and then?

 

[jamesworkshop]

perhaps it's the Alzheimer's talking

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7141458.stm

 

[LANCE420]

I'm sorry, BSG is a good Sci-Fi show. Dr. Who was decent when they had the first and second actor Mr. blah bleedle and frank tagwhoever and only three dumb earth bimbos following him
But what are they on now? the 11th Who and the billionth bimbo? Want soft sci? Go with a good stable one, like Lexx or Farscape.

Some shows need to know when it's time to die.

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.

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.

Your right that opinions aren't fact, but I never made the distinction.

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.

You stated that something IS good, that sounds like a definite to me. Sorry, it's why I always put I think or something to do with it being my pov on it. Bad habit, sorry.

That's over-generalizing a bit don't you think? Not only that, but if every show only had about three seasons then we would run out of ideas for new shows, or would constantly have to get used to new characters all the time. Don't get me wrong, new things are fine, but what's wrong with a long series? Especially when it is changing all the time and has fun new stories and characters pop up now and then?

Nothing wrong with long shows. Married with Children and South Park are examples of good and long shows. But science fiction shows are largely dependent on the universe they are created in. That in mind, Sci-Fi is limitless in potential stories and characters. I shouldn't have been critical of the Doctor Who series for being too long. But if I was the creative force of Doctor Who, I would have moved on by now. I had a successful show, and its time to use my creditability to make a new show. BEFORE I CANCEL IT, so if it sucks balls I can get a new job while surviving on the show while it becomes like Lost.

BTW, does the BBC have commitment issues? One thing if I ever do get into the TV business, I'll make my actors sign contracts. I won't follow the BBC policy of hiring month to month. They must be exempt employees, like McDonalds.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Nothing wrong with long shows. Married with Children and South Park are examples of good and long shows. But science fiction shows are largely dependent on the universe they are created in. That in mind, Sci-Fi is limitless in potential stories and characters. I shouldn't have been critical of the Doctor Who series for being too long. But if I was the creative force of Doctor Who, I would have moved on by now. I had a successful show, and its time to use my creditability to make a new show. BEFORE I CANCEL IT, so if it sucks balls I can get a new job while surviving on the show while it becomes like Lost.

BTW, does the BBC have commitment issues? One thing if I ever do get into the TV business, I'll make my actors sign contracts. I won't follow the BBC policy of hiring month to month. They must be exempt employees, like McDonalds.

They do exist to make money, and Doctor Who is a British icon, why throw it away? There's still a whole lot of running to do. It will end when the Doctor can no longer regenerate and that will be when the 12th one dies.

What makes you say that commitment part? Because the Doctor has had a few actors? Christopther Eccleston didn't want to stay on, David Tennant wanted to but felt it was time. The Doctor is a character where people leaving the show doesn't stop it.

I admit it was initially used as a cheap way to keep the show going back in the 60's but they eventually revealed a story element and created regeneration to explain it. It keeps the show from getting stale, and that's one thing Doctor Who has never been in my opinion.

 

[LANCE420]

Nothing wrong with long shows. Married with Children and South Park are examples of good and long shows. But science fiction shows are largely dependent on the universe they are created in. That in mind, Sci-Fi is limitless in potential stories and characters. I shouldn't have been critical of the Doctor Who series for being too long. But if I was the creative force of Doctor Who, I would have moved on by now. I had a successful show, and its time to use my creditability to make a new show. BEFORE I CANCEL IT, so if it sucks balls I can get a new job while surviving on the show while it becomes like Lost.

BTW, does the BBC have commitment issues? One thing if I ever do get into the TV business, I'll make my actors sign contracts. I won't follow the BBC policy of hiring month to month. They must be exempt employees, like McDonalds.

They do exist to make money, and Doctor Who is a British icon, why throw it away? There's still a whole lot of running to do. It will end when the Doctor can no longer regenerate and that will be when the 12th one dies.

What makes you say that commitment part? Because the Doctor has had a few actors? Christopther Eccleston didn't want to stay on, David Tennant wanted to but felt it was time. The Doctor is a character where people leaving the show doesn't stop it.

I admit it was initially used as a cheap way to keep the show going back in the 60's but they eventually revealed a story element and created regeneration to explain it. It keeps the show from getting stale, and that's one thing Doctor Who has never been in my opinion.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Christopther Eccleston did not want to keep doing it? he was the best one!

Look, I don't know if they actually have to replace actors due to the storyline. But if they don't, the BBC has some seriously fucked business strategy. It costs a corporation in the US an average 40,000 dollars to hire an employee, especially more with non-exempt contractors, like actors and CEO's. To hire more actors does not save them any money. It costs alot. But the creators and the network would have stopped if it wasn't profitable.

And whatever, I've only been talking about "What I would have done if I was in their shoes." Obviously, they've accomplished more than I can say I have. I wish I thought of Doctor Who. Of course, I'm a American, and I have my doubts if the general American public would have liked it.

 

[Andronicus]

I love Terry Pratchett, and I can see where he's coming from, but I don't agree with him.

Doctor Who has always been a little camp (can you say Kandyman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happiness_Patrol]?); as far as I'm concerned, that's part of what makes it Doctor Who. Still, the story-telling is frankly top-notch, even if the author wants to keep the secrets to himself until the climax, and even if I couldn't see it coming from a mile off, it still always sits right with me.

 

[Legend of J]

In all honestly Pratchett should STFU its tv its not supposed to make sense. So the whole concept of aliens is realistic? I guess we abandand the fact of whats real and what isn't on that note alone. ITS a tv show and its aimed alot of the time at the younger audiances (even though alot of people older still watch it nothing wrong with that).

In simple Pratchett is in an idiot you wouldent watch the tweenies (or whatever kids are watchin these days) and go oh its unrealistic because the dog talks etc etc.

At the end of the day i don't care who great Pratchett thinks he is doctor who is tv its not supposed to make sense just like HIS books arnt at the end of the day doctor who is one of the most watched tv shows in the united kingdom where as Pratchett's books arnt one of the most read books in the united kingdom.

 

[EeveeElectro]

But... he makes stuff up too =( there's nothing wrong with it.
It's his opinion I suppose, but pot kettle black.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Nothing wrong with long shows. Married with Children and South Park are examples of good and long shows. But science fiction shows are largely dependent on the universe they are created in. That in mind, Sci-Fi is limitless in potential stories and characters. I shouldn't have been critical of the Doctor Who series for being too long. But if I was the creative force of Doctor Who, I would have moved on by now. I had a successful show, and its time to use my creditability to make a new show. BEFORE I CANCEL IT, so if it sucks balls I can get a new job while surviving on the show while it becomes like Lost.

BTW, does the BBC have commitment issues? One thing if I ever do get into the TV business, I'll make my actors sign contracts. I won't follow the BBC policy of hiring month to month. They must be exempt employees, like McDonalds.

They do exist to make money, and Doctor Who is a British icon, why throw it away? There's still a whole lot of running to do. It will end when the Doctor can no longer regenerate and that will be when the 12th one dies.

What makes you say that commitment part? Because the Doctor has had a few actors? Christopther Eccleston didn't want to stay on, David Tennant wanted to but felt it was time. The Doctor is a character where people leaving the show doesn't stop it.

I admit it was initially used as a cheap way to keep the show going back in the 60's but they eventually revealed a story element and created regeneration to explain it. It keeps the show from getting stale, and that's one thing Doctor Who has never been in my opinion.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Christopther Eccleston did not want to keep doing it? he was the best one!

Look, I don't know if they actually have to replace actors due to the storyline. But if they don't, the BBC has some seriously fucked business strategy. It costs a corporation in the US an average 40,000 dollars to hire an employee, especially more with non-exempt contractors, like actors and CEO's. To hire more actors does not save them any money. It costs alot. But the creators and the network would have stopped if it wasn't profitable.

And whatever, I've only been talking about "What I would have done if I was in their shoes." Obviously, they've accomplished more than I can say I have. I wish I thought of Doctor Who. Of course, I'm a American, and I have my doubts if the general American public would have liked it.

He didn't want to be typecast, it was a shame. I like all the Doctors, I think each of them add something to the role.

I'm not sure how that works, so I won't pretend to, I just watch the show and enjoy it for what it is to me.

I have a few friends in the US that love it, but I don't know about the majority. Thanks for the discussion

 

[veloper]

-snip-

Doctor who is science fiction, it has other planets, aliens, space-ships and advanced technology. A basis in science fact or hypothesis is not what makes something science fiction because then you wouldn't count the work of H.G. Wells or Philip K. Dick as science fiction even though they are widely recognised as being some of the leading writers in the genre. A basis in fact only determines if it is hard or soft sf.

No, H.G. Wells based his sci-fi novels on the backward scientific theories of his time (like space travel by cannon) and you cannot accuse blade runner of being inconsistent or too far-fetched.

Those are 2 very specific examples and they are more or less wrong.
Firstly H.g Wells didn't base all of his writing on science-fact of the time, he invented the phrase time machine and he was the first person to write about an operator controlled machine that could choose their destination. Also the way the Martian fighting machines move is completely made up.

Secondly Blade Runner wasn't written by Philip K. Dick and it has androids which were never based in fact or hypothesis. Only in the last 20 years has anyone done anything about making them a reality and that is due to science fiction. The book that he actually wrote has quite a bit extra for example electric flies, pets etc which are only touched on in the film. As well as a number of machines that are imagined and not based on scientific fact.

So neither authors wrote very hard sci-fi, but if we define those as soft sci-fi, we'll need to coin a whole new grade of snotling gas sci-fi to make room for Dr. Who on the end of the scale.

 

[L-J-F]

I think by "Science Fiction" they mean "Fictional Science".

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

Ho yus [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8503737.stm]. Sir Stephen Fry as well, allegedly.

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm sorry Mr Pratchett. I didn't hear you. May you say something a little less stupidly insane? Too Fiction? Thats like saying an Apple is too crunchy or a Dog is too furry. It's who they are. The doctor thinks as he goes as in a real world scenario you would do the same, it's just that The Doctor is rather smart and therefore can think much better.

Also...

"I'm sorry about this, but I just don't think that you can instantly transport a whole hospital onto the moon without all of the windows blowing out. Oh! You use a force field, do you?! And there's the trouble; one sentence makes it all OK."

I never knew that you owned your very own Teleporter, Pratchett. You must share that wonder of Science sometime.

Calumon: Doctor Who now?

He never said he owned his own teleporter. He just pointed out an obvious flaw in the fictional tech.

 

[WindKnight]

Ok, having readthe actual BLOG he made at sfx several days before this, I have to roll my eyes at the way this was reported.

Attack? ATTACK? ATTACK?

How can you call the blog an attack.

it wasn't 'this show sucks'. it wasn't 'this show blows and I hate it.'

It was 'i enjoy this show, but these few details niggle and annoy me, and it could be better'.

And he is right. I've enjoyed the new series quite a but, but numerous times I've gone 'wait, what? how did that happen?' it doesn't bother me as much, but yes, i have had a few 'oh, not gain,' and 'oh great, reset button again.' moments.

Seriously though, I mast take issue with the OP posting it with that title. Totally inflammatory, sensationalist and INACCURATE. And if your excuse is you just copied the guardian headline, then shame on you for laziness.

 

[Alar]

First of all, I think calling it an attack is silly.

Secondly, I find myself tending to agree with Pratchett. There is little or no science backing up Doctor Who in most of the series. That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable. Hell no! I love Doctor Who. It just seems more like a Fantasy show, with the setting having to do with space, aliens, and time.

 

[VulakAerr]

He's right, you know. Doctor Who is a lot of fun sometimes but it drives me insane with poor story-telling sometimes. Particularly this two-parter that we just saw. They don't even seem to know how to set up a story lately. Yes, the Doctor is "magical" but being ahead of the audience isn't the same as inventing solutions as you go.

Make.
More.
Sense.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

I completely understand Pratchett's problems with the show, the writing under T.Davies was extremely poor and it does get a bit too daft at times.

I assume he has no problems with the older (classic) series though, as i believe all these problems are products of the reboot. I have to say the newest series is promising, but Pratchett is right, the doctor needs to stop making things up as he goes, a little clear explanation does go along way.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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.

Now, if you want to say that such methods diminish the storytelling, that's a whole other discussion, and one that I think has some merit. But to say that the show is doing something wrong by, for example, whisking Martha's hospital to the moon...who cares that it's a silly set up? It made for a fun episode, didn't it?

Discworld creator Terry Pratchett has taken umbrage at the storytelling of Doctor Who, calling it "ludicrous", and saying that it "breaks most of the laws of narrative".

...

Pratchett did admit that he still watched the show however, despite his grievances: "[it's]pure professionally-written entertainment, even if it helps sometimes if you leave your brain on a hook by the door ... I might shout at the screen again, but I will be watching on Saturday," he admitted. "After all, when you've had your moan you have to admit that it is very, very entertaining, with its heart in the right place, even if its head is often in orbit around Jupiter."

*cough cough*

[small]Please don't ban me[/small]

And yet he goes on to find fault with how the show approaches science. As I said before, though apparently not quite clearly enough, if he wants to discuss that it's bad at storytelling fine, but kicking it for not being hard science is just plain pointless.