Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[Billion Backs]

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.

Well then you didn't understand SHIT about the whole point of this article with overly sensationalist title.

And missed some 8 pages of somewhat legitimate discussion on this matter.

Science fiction is supposed to be based on science, real or fictional. It's plot progresses on that basis. Doctor Who, however, majorly relies on simple Deus Ex Machina to solve many problems. Things that were not previously explained or were contradicted magically appear to be all right at the right moment.

And while that's not necessarily a bad trope, you can certainly overload on Deus Ex Machina... And things that one can call science fiction (note "science") doesn't usually rely on such blatant use of it.

Example:

Having an established world with established rules of reality, however different or similar from our Earth where a certain character named, say, Dr. Watt, possesses a number of super-advanced instruments capable of various wondrous effects, which he uses to escape out of various situations is good. If these said tools aren't working out for some situations, he might have to improvise, based on pre-existing scientific realities of said fiction, and maybe make a new device out of the other ones he has that will be capable of solving his problem.

That's okay, and science fiction.

Now, having an established world with established rules of reality, blah blah, where certain character named Dr. Who, possesses a number of super advanced instruments capable of various wondrous effects, which he uses to escape various sticky situations by simply going the way of "hah! Did you know it could do that too?" and producing an effect that's previously never been mentioned and may contradict other fundamental laws of the said fictional universe is just lame. It can work in a few situations, sure. It would make a great comedy, too. It might even fit certain characters, in some cases. But it doesn't make much SCIENCE FICTION, whether you're a fan of the show or not.

Just because you're a fan of something doesn't mean it's infallible. Especially when criticism comes from a good place and is reasonable. Nobody said "Dr. Who is shit hur lululul". That wouldn't be criticism, it'd be a simple attack.

 

[sabbat]

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.

Well then you didn't understand SHIT about the whole point of this article with overly sensationalist title.

And missed some 8 pages of somewhat legitimate discussion on this matter.

Science fiction is supposed to be based on science, real or fictional. It's plot progresses on that basis. Doctor Who, however, majorly relies on simple Deus Ex Machina to solve many problems. Things that were not previously explained or were contradicted magically appear to be all right at the right moment.

And while that's not necessarily a bad trope, you can certainly overload on Deus Ex Machina... And things that one can call science fiction (note "science") doesn't usually rely on such blatant use of it.

Example:

Having an established world with established rules of reality, however different or similar from our Earth where a certain character named, say, Dr. Watt, possesses a number of super-advanced instruments capable of various wondrous effects, which he uses to escape out of various situations is good. If these said tools aren't working out for some situations, he might have to improvise, based on pre-existing scientific realities of said fiction, and maybe make a new device out of the other ones he has that will be capable of solving his problem.

That's okay, and science fiction.

Now, having an established world with established rules of reality, blah blah, where certain character named Dr. Who, possesses a number of super advanced instruments capable of various wondrous effects, which he uses to escape various sticky situations by simply going the way of "hah! Did you know it could do that too?" and producing an effect that's previously never been mentioned and may contradict other fundamental laws of the said fictional universe is just lame. It can work in a few situations, sure. It would make a great comedy, too. It might even fit certain characters, in some cases. But it doesn't make much SCIENCE FICTION, whether you're a fan of the show or not.

Just because you're a fan of something doesn't mean it's infallible. Especially when criticism comes from a good place and is reasonable. Nobody said "Dr. Who is shit hur lululul". That wouldn't be criticism, it'd be a simple attack.

I never said that I thaught Pratchett was saying doctor who is shit, but the basic premise of FICTION is that ANYTHING is possible. therefore, any arguement based along the lines of "this story is too fantastical. It doesn't make sense in the real world, and so it shouldn't make sense in it's own" is a glaring omission of the word fiction. If terry were to play by the rules he suggests, than Diskworld wouldn't exist. And doctor who doesn't just use the "bet ya didn't know we could do that" premise. Everything that was established in previous episodes is true now. They are very careful when it comes to continuity.

 

[Captain Blackout]

How can you complain about something being "too fiction" in Science Fiction? Also, I thought Dr. Who was classified as Sci-fi/Fantasy. Is he saying that the old Dr. Who was okay while the new series is wrong?

Pretty much, even if he didn't intend to. Basically it comes down to 'my brand of story-telling is better than yours'. I love Pratchett but Dr. Who kicks his butt for me for reasons I doubt Pratchett would fully understand. The new series is really about the new companion.

 

[kiwisushi]

The solution is obvious: Terry Pratchett should write an episode for the new series, and show us all how it's done.

That is awesome! The tardis jumps and ends up in Discworld, then just see what happens, hell discworld has its own time manipulators, it could link in with the thief of time.

 

[kiwisushi]

based around the lives of fantasy characters living on a disk, balanced upon the back of a turtle, a turtle floating through outer space.

You know the weirdest thing, he didn't make that bit up! It comes from some obscure part of Hinduism I think. Oh, you forgot the three elephants on the turtle also.

 

[RelexCryo]

Terry Pratchett is awesome. Few people on the net would be willing to criticize Dr. Who, even if they admitted they like watching it after the criticism. Unlike Star Trek, Harry Potter, and *especially* Twilight, Dr. Who seems to be sacred.

 

[William Ossiss]

doctor who isnt supposed to be a detective story. we watch to see the doctor make it up as he goes along ^_^

 

[Ericb]

Just because it's sci fi, that doesn't mean it has to have basis in genuine science.

Then why [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DarthWiki/WallBanger?from=Main.WallBanger] bother calling it "science fiction"?

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.

As always, I will quote someone who I feel provided a answer good enough that I don't have to:

|
|
|
|
V

Yes. Yes it does. Although some of the minor elements of a sci-fi plot are allowed a few parts of narrative freedom, the core and main functions of the tale is very much expected to be scientifically plausible.

Yes, suspension of disbelief is necessary in some cases. However, it is a quid pro quo arrangement. The reader/ viewer suspends judgment on a plot facet of dubious scientific grounds in return of the promise of entertainment. In Doctor Who there is simply too much of that going on. It's fantasy, not Sci-Fi.

 

[DominicxD]

I have to say that while I'm a fan of Doctor Who, i agree with Pratchett, whoever the fuck he may be.

This is all down to one man: Russel T Davis.

Hopefully, now that Moffat has taken over, there will be less "OMG LOOK ITS BILLIONS OF DALEKS FUCK ACTUAL CONCLUSIONS LOOK AT OUR CGI BUDGET MOTHERFUCK ALSO RESET BUTTON LOL"

 

[lokiduck]

XD What about Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? That's not much science fiction in some ways.

I like science fiction full of Make it up as you go syndrome, my own series which is fantasy actually is make it up as you go and I can agree with his points, but I love Doctor Who, Hitchhikers, and I have not read Pratchett's work but plan to at some point.

 

[MatsVS]

The fact there exists people who does not know who Sir Terry Pratchett is baffles me to the point of exasperation.

 

[Kaigen]

Terry is right actually.

The problem is that science fiction has become a buzzword for any kind of work of fiction set in space or whatever. If it has robots and ray guns, then it's science fiction.

Science Fiction as a genere is characterized by trying to present things in a plausible light. While fantastic technologies might be invented, a lot of time is spent explaining how they might work, and what the repercussions might be, and exploring those elements within a story.

Things like "Doctor Who" and indeed most popular "sci-fi" are technically fantasy, or "space fantasy" if you need a sub-genere. Though for people today "fantasy" is generally considered to be sword and sorcery even if that isn't generally true.

I think you've hit on the semantic gap, here. I used to hear Star Wars referred to "Space Opera," but I think that term has faded from use and doesn't really apply to Doctor Who. I remember people trying to use "Science Fantasy," but I don't think that got any traction either. We really don't have recognizable terms to distinguish between "story that draws from modern theoretical science in a believable fashion" and "pulp entertainment set in the future."

And for people saying there isn't time for a full explanation in an hour long show, maybe not, but in my experience, well written shows can still maintain suspension of disbelief with small touches that make the world seem consistent. Firefly and Cowboy Bebop both did this well in my opinion. Firefly with small touches like "Vera" not being able to be fired without air around her or Serenity not being able to maintain oxygen without a running engine, not to mention not having sound in space, and Cowboy Bebop with details like spacesuits having magnetic boots to walk on ship hulls in zero-g and all large ships having rotating rings to create artificial gravity. Heck, in one episode Spike saves himself from drifting away in zero gravity by using Newtonian physics, which is certainly more satisfying than suddenly having him have rocket boots or a magical screwdriver or something.

 

[Wargamer]

Here's my thing. He's not wrong - Dr. Who relies on the "magic wand" solution rather a lot. My point is....so bloody what? So long as the stories are still fun, who cares if the solutions to problems is a bit whizbangy? Just because it's sci fi, that doesn't mean it has to have basis in genuine science.

I mean, come on, the TARDIS has a pool for crying out loud. Are we really going to get upset at a bit of deus ex machina?

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?

I think Pratchett's point is that Doctor Who runs solely on childish silliness now.

It's also fair to say that he didn't say this was a bad thing. Hell, I don't think it is either; as a culture, we're too obsessed with everything having to be 'right'. I have had so many arguments with people on forums where we've done group projects because I've turned around and yelled (via forum posts) "I don't CARE if it's not scientifically feasible, or tactically sound, or even in any way sensible! I JUST WANT REALLY AWESOME SHIT TO HAPPEN!"

That is what Doctor Who is all about these days - random, zany weirdness that occasionally pretends to have a plot.

As others have said, I think Blink is one of their best stories, and the reason for that is it really doesn't hurt to have some nod to reality. If you get the little things right, such as the fact that mobile phones don't work properly in a tunnel, then the audience will happily go along with the big things, like time-travelling spaceships that are bigger on the inside.