Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[FightThePower]

He's right, there's a lot of bullshit in Doctor Who. Series 3 finale in particular.

Also the various people getting angry here because he doesn't like something you like is kinda hilarious.

 

[Jared]

I can certainly see his point. However I think it's a little harsh.

Dr who gas had to evolve through the generations, change to keep it fresh. I agree the new series us a little out there, but that's some of it's charm

 

[That's Funny]

He has some very valid points, I mean I'm not particulary a fan of the one sentance resolution either.But I think Pratchett needs to relax, it's just a bit of saturday night entertainment, it's not really going to harm anyone.

 

[Virgil]

In Star Wars people can't breathe in outer space for example, and if they did, people would wonder why the hell they can.

To be fair, Star Wars is also futuristic fantasy, not science fiction. It's swords and sorcery, set in space. This, of course, is one of the best examples of the problem Pratchett mentioned.

In theory, science fiction is limited to the realm of things that are likely to be possible based on scientific theory. It's creating fiction based on predictions of where the world might advance to. This definition has one incredibly large flaw though. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

The Doctor's sonic screwdriver, and a lot of other things from the show, fall into this nebulous area. It, and many of his solutions, might as well be magic. I'm sure that none of the writers are even considering whether or not the things that are happening are based on science. So I can see his point - disregarding scientific feasibility does move the show well away from Sci-Fi.

It doesn't matter - the show is entertaining, and there's nothing at all wrong with Fantasy. Pratchett himself said it too. I'm of the opinion that epically-talented, wildly-successful, knighted authors should get a free pass to nitpick about improper use of genres whenever they want to

 

[CriticalGriffin]

Who's this guy again?

... Oooh, the guy who did Discworld, I see. I've never even read Discworld, perhaps I should.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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.

He's not saying that it's "too fiction", but that it's too fantasy for a show that claims to be Science Fiction.

See, good Science Fiction has consistent rules, even if they're ones that were made up for the purposes of the fiction, and it has to stick within those rules and not just make up exceptions and new rules as it goes along for the sake of drama. He's saying that too frequently Doctor Who doesn't bother with any kind of rules, it just uses magic with some science words thrown around, and that sometimes this causes it to lose storytelling opportunities that actual science fiction has.

He's right as well, Doctor Who is basically a fantasy show, it's not science fiction, it's not even soft scifi, it's outright wizards and daleks fantasy.

 

[AboveUp]

Pratchet needs a hobby. Like collecting buttons. Give him something better to do than look for faults in a random television program.

... Do you know who Terry Pratchett is? I have to ask because if this was sarcasm it's hard to tell.

I say you need a better hobby, like crocheting, than taking random posts on the internet seriously.

So your asking me not to listen to you?

If that 's the case then I should just block you?

OT: I love Pratchett and it is for that reason exactly I gave up on Dr.Who.

That and the fact it had far too wide an 'ideal viewer' demographic to be trusted!

It's amazing how many Terry Pratchett quotes you have just missed while arguing with someone there, really.

Well done, Quaidis.

 

[Monshroud]

See, I haven't seen many Doctor Who episodes before the restart in 2005, still from what I have seen, the show was never deeply rooted in actual science to begin with. If you can accept the fact that this huge spaceship is cloaked as a British police box, then I think you can go along with the idea that it is powerful enough to move a planet or that the Doctor has a Sonic Screwdriver which allows him to take readings, open doors, etc..

Personally I think Mr Pratchett is being a bit jealous because if he tried following the same techniques in his novels, well he would get called out on it. It's two different forms of entertainment. I don't watch Doctor Who because I want actual science, I watch it to get sucked into a fantastic journey with interesting characters.

 

[Neosage]

In Star Wars people can't breathe in outer space for example, and if they did, people would wonder why the hell they can.

To be fair, Star Wars is also futuristic fantasy, not science fiction. It's swords and sorcery, set in space. This, of course, is one of the best examples of the problem Pratchett mentioned.

In theory, science fiction is limited to the realm of things that are likely to be possible based on scientific theory. It's creating fiction based on predictions of where the world might advance to. This definition has one incredibly large flaw though. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - Arthur C. Clarke

The Doctor's sonic screwdriver, and a lot of other things from the show, fall into this nebulous area. It, and many of his solutions, might as well be magic. I'm sure that none of the writers are even considering whether or not the things that are happening are based on science. So I can see his point - disregarding scientific feasibility does move the show well away from Sci-Fi.

It doesn't matter - the show is entertaining, and there's nothing at all wrong with Fantasy. Pratchett himself said it too. I'm of the opinion that epically-talented, wildly-successful, knighted authors should get a free pass to nitpick about improper use of genres whenever they want to

I guess it just depends on your definitions, I'd still label Starwars as Sci-Fi, though. I hadn't heard of Futuristic-Fantasy until just now.

this guy is a prick u cant poke wholes in science fiction, ITS FICTION U MORON U CAN DO WHAT EVER U WANT.

Calling someone a "prick" doesn't really make you right, you have to back-up your statment with facts and reasons.

 

[LostTimeLady]

After reading the article (and mostly all of the posts above) I feel I can put the following forward towards the debate:
Doctor Who's science is very much based in the theoretical. You have to remember that the TARDIS flies through a sixth dimention known as the Time Vortex where Space and Time are one. Ok. Now, if we progress from there you see that Doctor Who science is sort of the science of it's own Universe that happens to conicide with our own laws of physics, at times.
I do agree that being able to guess how the Doctor is going to get out of situations is part of the fun, but even if you haven't been given clues, detective novel style, as to the out come, it doesn't diminish the biuld up, the fun you have guessing and the solution when it comes around.
I'm glad that Pratchett still enjoys Doctor Who even if he thinks it needs reclassifying as Science Fantasy or Fantasy Science (more likely) as it shows that really the big thing about Doctor Who is the excitment, adventure and really wild things (to quote another great Sci-fi entity, Hitch-hikers) and not tripping over what the Doctor means when he says "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow".


And my personal favourite, faster than light travel with two diagrams and, a, joke!- Doctor11

 

[GloatingSwine]

Personally I think Mr Pratchett is being a bit jealous because if he tried following the same techniques in his novels, well he would get called out on it.

Pterry writes fantasy novels. When he says a wizard did it he can tell you the wizard's shoe size.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

Didn't Terry Pratchett like, die? Or did he just get some serious condition.

 

[scotth266]

Also, if you all would kindly examine his original post [http://www.sfx.co.uk/2010/05/03/guest-blog-terry-pratchett-on-doctor-who/], you will find that Pratchett is actually quite the Who fan. He is not "attacking" Doctor Who: just pointing out that it relies a little too much on the concept of non-foreshadowed Deus Ex Machinas and is very soft-sci.

He also mentions at the end that he still likes Doctor Who, and one of his favorite episodes was

This is exactly why Blink is still the best episode of the new series. The solution was completely comprehensible.

...Damn ninjas!

 

[KeyMaster45]

If there is one thing Doctor Who (the new series) is riddled with its plot holes. I think that's what makes me love it so. (other than the pure awesome excreted by the doctor every time he opens his mouth) Take for instance the latest angel episode where there's a scene with an army of weeping angels, and none of them have their faces covered. Rewind to the original blink episode and its explained not even they can look at each other (that's kinda how they stopped them) So what happened there? Why the sudden change?

Does it aggravate me on a certain level? Of course cause I know my friends and I will begin dissecting the episode bickering amongst ourselves about why this is possible. Sometimes suspending belief is necessary for a show, and the fact Doctor Who doesn't bore us with 75% of the episode filled with science terms we don't understand allows them to cut the crap and focus on story.

I disagree with Prat, Doctor Who is most certainly sci-fi, I think he's just angry he didn't realize you could cut the usual sci-fi BS and still have a successful series.

 

[veloper]

Terry is right that it's not SF anymore, when nothing makes sense, then it becomes fantasy.
Proper Sci-fi has a basis in scientic theory or hypothesis and more importantly, applies these ideas consistently.

 

[Acidwell]

While he has a point about the narrative and not being able to solve it, i don't think doctor who has ever claimed to be realistic so any explanation of how stuff works should be allowed as long as it is within the canon of the show.

Terry is right that it's not SF anymore, when nothing makes sense, then it becomes fantasy.
Proper Sci-fi has a basis in scientic theory or hypothesis and more importantly, applies these ideas consistently.

If it used to be sf but isn't now what is the scientific theory on hypothesis behind the tardis? And that has been around since the very beginning.

 

[Dana22]

New series are garbage and Smith is awful.

 

[Xanadu84]

Maybe I'm biased, being a Pratchettaholic and all, but I gotta admit that if anything, I would go a little harder of Dr. Who. Ive tried to watch it, and personally, I never get a sense of storytelling: I get the sense that they have a beginning point, an end point, and in the middle they just throw in a crazy, nonsense idea that could transition the 2 states. It's not a matter of being realistic, its a matter of being believable, of stringing together a series of meaningful events. Even the wildest of Pratchetts fantasies contain a logical, observable, sensible course of action that evolves naturally, even if the justification is just a pun or play on words. It's a problem when a series doesn't follow its own set of internal rules, but I'm not entirely sure that Dr. Who HAS a set of internal rules. Then again, the point is moot because Pratchett says that he likes it. He is just giving his professional opinion on a matter of storytelling, and if anyone has that right, its Terry Pratchett.