I can see the points he makes. It is definitely soft science: we start with a police box bigger on the inside than the outside which can FLY THROUGH TIME, psychic paper and a magic screwdriver. We're not going to get scientific accuracy from that. Some people prefer a more strict scientific approach, and I dig that, and just because Terry Pratchett writes fantasy doesn't mean he doesn't have a different taste in sci fi. They are different genres. I can deal with it if one person whose work I like has issues with something else I like. It's not really my problem, I'm not usually there to deal with it, and if I were watching Dr. Who with Terry Pratchett I really don't think I'd complain about a bit of angry commentary.
Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
...Next time you criticize something, Mr. Pratchett, can you not do it in such a way that makes me feel like I'm brainless for liking it?
i agree i remember saying something along those lines with a friend.
because hes a time lord he can say anything to make a story work. i dont like that as it makes you feel cheated. how are you supposed to see it coming?
although apart from those instances the big plot twist are forseable more than they used to be.
because hes a time lord he can say anything to make a story work. i dont like that as it makes you feel cheated. how are you supposed to see it coming?
although apart from those instances the big plot twist are forseable more than they used to be.
Sir Terry Pratchett has a point or three. Including that, at the end of the day, Doctor Who is entertaining. I do tend to hang up my brain at the door to get through it (Winston Churchill and Daleks was certainly annoying me intensely) but hey, it's all in the name of fun.
its a fantasy world with made up worlds, made up creatures, n made up sciences, so a fantasy made up solution kinda fits.
A lot like Star wars or better yet, star trek. It's made up science!
The thing that I LOVE about Dr. Who is that in the time of solutions to problems is "i hit it with my lightsaber" or "I shoot it with my phazer after cleverly knocking down their shields" He seems to find "peaceful" solutions that don't always involve weapons.
A lot like Star wars or better yet, star trek. It's made up science!
The thing that I LOVE about Dr. Who is that in the time of solutions to problems is "i hit it with my lightsaber" or "I shoot it with my phazer after cleverly knocking down their shields" He seems to find "peaceful" solutions that don't always involve weapons.
My sentiments exactly, also when I tried to watch Dr. Who I found it terribly dry, and a little stupid >_>HK_01 said:
The logical issues in Dr. Who aren't really about how it break's science. Hell, if we actually condemned Scifi for doing that, there would be no scifi. Even "Hard" scifi would have to be classified as pure shit eventually as our knowledge of science advances and our understanding of the universe changes.
When people complain about scifi breaking science, it's usually that the show/book/whatever is breaking it's own internal consistency.
For example: It's not really a problem that the Enterprise can go faster than light. That's part of the Star Trek universe, that ships can go faster than light with something called a "Warp Engine." It is a problem when Voyagers new fangled organic computer is disabled by an otherwise harmless cheese bacteria, since "Starfleet designers are retarded" is not supposed to be a constant of the Star Trek universe.
In the case of Dr. Who, it's not really a problem that a hospital was teleported to the moon, because it's a conceit of the setting that technology exists that can do that. Unfortunately, Dr. Who breaks it's own internal consistency all the time.
Water's of Mars, for example. The entire conflict is based around the conceit that the Doctor cannot change the events of the episode because they are vital to the advancement of the Human race. The Mars base?s destruction is a fixed point in time.
Two problems with this set up:
1. In a previous episode, the Doctor was ready to transplant an entire alien (and potentially hostile) race onto Earth, with no concern whatsoever as to how that would effect the timeline. Seems to me that might have a big influence on how human history plays out.
2. Even if we accept that the Mars base exploding is more important than an entire alien race moving to Earth, it is made very clear the fate of the base crew is never determined. No bodies are found (nuclear explosion after all), so them dieing isn?t actually part of the equation. The obvious solution is for the Doctor to transport the base crew to some distant point in Time and/or Space where no one from Earth will ever hear about them.
But the Doctor doesn?t even acknowledge this possibility.
The other issue, that is of the Doctor as dues ex machina, is painfully clear in some episodes as well. There?s nothing inherently wrong with the Doctor spewing technobabble, but it becomes a problem when said babble is substituted for drama.
Take say? ?Silence in the Library.? Amazing episode. While there is a lot of technobabble leading up to the ending, the actual drama is that someone has to die to make the solution work.
Compare that to the climax of ?Journey?s End,? where Donna literally technobabbles the Dalek?s to death in a manner seemingly designed to be as undramatic as possible.
When people complain about scifi breaking science, it's usually that the show/book/whatever is breaking it's own internal consistency.
For example: It's not really a problem that the Enterprise can go faster than light. That's part of the Star Trek universe, that ships can go faster than light with something called a "Warp Engine." It is a problem when Voyagers new fangled organic computer is disabled by an otherwise harmless cheese bacteria, since "Starfleet designers are retarded" is not supposed to be a constant of the Star Trek universe.
In the case of Dr. Who, it's not really a problem that a hospital was teleported to the moon, because it's a conceit of the setting that technology exists that can do that. Unfortunately, Dr. Who breaks it's own internal consistency all the time.
Water's of Mars, for example. The entire conflict is based around the conceit that the Doctor cannot change the events of the episode because they are vital to the advancement of the Human race. The Mars base?s destruction is a fixed point in time.
Two problems with this set up:
1. In a previous episode, the Doctor was ready to transplant an entire alien (and potentially hostile) race onto Earth, with no concern whatsoever as to how that would effect the timeline. Seems to me that might have a big influence on how human history plays out.
2. Even if we accept that the Mars base exploding is more important than an entire alien race moving to Earth, it is made very clear the fate of the base crew is never determined. No bodies are found (nuclear explosion after all), so them dieing isn?t actually part of the equation. The obvious solution is for the Doctor to transport the base crew to some distant point in Time and/or Space where no one from Earth will ever hear about them.
But the Doctor doesn?t even acknowledge this possibility.
The other issue, that is of the Doctor as dues ex machina, is painfully clear in some episodes as well. There?s nothing inherently wrong with the Doctor spewing technobabble, but it becomes a problem when said babble is substituted for drama.
Take say? ?Silence in the Library.? Amazing episode. While there is a lot of technobabble leading up to the ending, the actual drama is that someone has to die to make the solution work.
Compare that to the climax of ?Journey?s End,? where Donna literally technobabbles the Dalek?s to death in a manner seemingly designed to be as undramatic as possible.
The title of this article is seriously sensasionalist, because as he stated being somewhat of a avid watcher of the show, he probably knows what he is talking about. And even said that wants to keep on watching, just not when the show seems to be going down this particular hill.
Entertainment does not preclude pulling a plot element out of thin air. That's bd writing and disrespect to the intelligence of (most) viewers.
Fun is stimulating recreation of the body and/or mind, people.
If you just want to not think, go watch a reality show or stare at a wall for a while. The second one will be more productive, actually.
Disagreeing with someone is not the same as taking offense. Apparently this still needs to be streesed out as much as possible.
Because that seemed to be the point Pratchett was making.
Entertainment does not preclude pulling a plot element out of thin air. That's bd writing and disrespect to the intelligence of (most) viewers.
Fun is stimulating recreation of the body and/or mind, people.
If you just want to not think, go watch a reality show or stare at a wall for a while. The second one will be more productive, actually.
Disagreeing with someone is not the same as taking offense. Apparently this still needs to be streesed out as much as possible.
Then why [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/WallBanger?from=Main.WallBanger] bother calling it "science fiction"?Susan Arendt said:
Because that seemed to be the point Pratchett was making.
Oh, please. So the only valid science fiction is that which can be explained by hard science? Come now.Ericb said:
I have given up watching Doctor Who because it is neither science fiction or self-consistent fantasy, but mumbo-jumbo excuses after the fact.
In short, Doctor Who is crap.
Pity.
I have been watching it for over 30 years.
In short, Doctor Who is crap.
Pity.
I have been watching it for over 30 years.
His points are pretty valid. And what he talked about worked for the first few years that David Tennant was The Doctor. Towards the end of Tennant's time as The Doctor the makeitupasyougoalongness got boring. You knew that he was gonna make some stupid shit up that no one could understand using his sonic screwdriver that could do anything.
Dr. Who has gotten boring and I'm sad to say that.
Dr. Who has gotten boring and I'm sad to say that.
IT'S NOT REAL! STOP ACTING LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REAL!! GAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!! Sorry, I'm a really big Doctor Who fan and the fact that a man who wrote an entire series, based around the lives of fantasy characters living on a disk, balanced upon the back of a turtle, a turtle floating through outer space, is criticising a show for it's realism really incenses me.
Heh, I can't believe this is still raging, and so many people still refuse to read more than the incendiary headline.
Pratchett is not demanding every future Dr Who script is fact checked by NASA, he's saying that although he really LIKES the current Dr Who show (please read that part again), he thinks that sometimes the plot resolutions can be somewhat weak and reliant on 'magic fixes', instead of something clever, or something returning from earlier in the show to save the day.
He's not saying it's bad, which is why 'attacks' is a godawful word to use in the headline, he's just saying that if he had the choice, he'd prefer that one element to be changed for the better, he also understands that it's good fun entertainment, and shouldn't be analysed too deeply.
As for Pratchett not following logic and science himself, his 'discworld' runs on its own logic, based fairly heavily on tropes and the stereotypes of fantasy, and while that's not suitable for everyone, he generally sticks to his own set of rules, once they're set up.
As for the 'crazy idea of golems following information written on a piece of paper inside their heads' that's a nod to Asimov's rules of robotics, respected sci fi. So much of his writing is related to things in our world, such as the idea that magic is designed to not be used, not by people who can't use it, because that's easy, the hard part is not using magic when you can. That's essentially based on international nuclear weapons stockpiling to my mind.
"We've got all this power and we could use it, but I know you can use it too, so lets just not, ok? Especially as the last time two wizards duelled in a city, that city ended up a glowing swamp with sentient frogs living in it."
On a side note, it sure got people talking, anyone else want to post something mildly critical from one fanbase to another? *hides*
Pratchett is not demanding every future Dr Who script is fact checked by NASA, he's saying that although he really LIKES the current Dr Who show (please read that part again), he thinks that sometimes the plot resolutions can be somewhat weak and reliant on 'magic fixes', instead of something clever, or something returning from earlier in the show to save the day.
He's not saying it's bad, which is why 'attacks' is a godawful word to use in the headline, he's just saying that if he had the choice, he'd prefer that one element to be changed for the better, he also understands that it's good fun entertainment, and shouldn't be analysed too deeply.
As for Pratchett not following logic and science himself, his 'discworld' runs on its own logic, based fairly heavily on tropes and the stereotypes of fantasy, and while that's not suitable for everyone, he generally sticks to his own set of rules, once they're set up.
As for the 'crazy idea of golems following information written on a piece of paper inside their heads' that's a nod to Asimov's rules of robotics, respected sci fi. So much of his writing is related to things in our world, such as the idea that magic is designed to not be used, not by people who can't use it, because that's easy, the hard part is not using magic when you can. That's essentially based on international nuclear weapons stockpiling to my mind.
"We've got all this power and we could use it, but I know you can use it too, so lets just not, ok? Especially as the last time two wizards duelled in a city, that city ended up a glowing swamp with sentient frogs living in it."
On a side note, it sure got people talking, anyone else want to post something mildly critical from one fanbase to another? *hides*