Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[Ashbax]

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 it was sarcasm, it's hard to tell.

Yes...because, um, he does have a hobby. That hes quite famous for. Lol.

Its called writing.

 

[Blimey]

Is he fucking serious?

He makes his living writing fantasy novels, with clairvoyants, magic, and all that shit.

And yet he calls out Doctor Who?

What a lunatic.

Clearly, you didn't understand shit about what he said.

There is a HUGE difference between creating a fictional world with established rules unlike those on Earth - things like magic, generic sci-fi stuff, and so on, where things generally happen by these rules, however strange and complicated they might be, and simply resolving plots through use of Deus Ex Machina.

[link]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina [/link]

Here, enjoy losing hours of your time. Bwahaha, I sacrifice your collective productivity to Tv Tropes!

I'm fully aware of Deus Ex Machina. And I understand completely what he was saying. And what he was saying is that somehow Doctor Who is less valid of an entertainment source then say, a Fantasy novel. It would be like throwing out an ignorant-ass statement like video games can never be considered art.

Oh wait...

 

[Sevre]

I don't watch Dr.Who so I wouldn't be able to criticize, but Pratchett wrote my favourite book of all time (Men At Arms) so he gets the cookie.

 

[Cowabungaa]

He's right, but even he doesn't seem to care as he finds it very entertaining. And really, there's no need to complain when you're entertained. I sure as hell won't.

I can see the awfulness in Transformers, but I'm still entertained, I can see the flaws in Doctor Who, but I'm still entertained. And that's all what matters to me, whether I have fun or not.

But I won't forgive Moffat for

Spoiler

making the Angels move while we were watching.

That just broke the whole thing really, bad move there.

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

SO. MUCH. WANT!!!

 

[Ashbax]

Is he fucking serious?

He makes his living writing fantasy novels, with clairvoyants, magic, and all that shit.

And yet he calls out Doctor Who?

What a lunatic.

Pratchett writes Fantasy, Dr Who is Science Fiction. The concept of it is that it's supposed to be based upon science somewhere down the line. In Star Wars people can't breathe in outer space for example, and if they did, people would wonder why the hell they can.

Regardless, this is a UK newspaper reporting this, the chances are it was all taken completely out of context anyway, you wouldn't believe the crap they can get away with.

Worse, it's the Guardian Urgh...they probably made the story up.

I detect sarcasm. Admittedly the Guardian are not too bad, but they are not above sensationalism. I mean, The Escapist doesn't make money from each article individually and even the title here uses the word "attacks", despite Pratchett saying he is an avid fan.

And just to anwser the first post there, pratchett is allowed to get away with this no problem, have you ever read his books? He explains everything about the fantasy well, he makes magic seem a nuisance, rather than the harry potter version of a "fixallanwsertoeverything" he makes fantasy lands, people, cities, plots that seem like they could Work, and makes it seem real.

His problem is how Dr. Who does NONE of that, when its more inclined than him to do so.

 

[Doug]

Firstly, as has been repeated and seemingly ignored, he's saying he enjoys Dr Who and thinks it is a good show, but that it's slipping into the format of going:

1. Bad thing happens.
2. Dr Who does something without any explanation.
3. Everyone celebrates.

This - I tune in to every episode still, but most of the time, you can't actually predict whats going to happen, not because its a very subtle or ingenious solution, but because the solution is 'makeitupphysics'.

Though the latest episode with the Angels was actually quite clever.

 

[Kouen]

Ive not bothered with the rebooted series, I Used to watch the original series all the way to the end and that was it for me.

 

[liveslowdiefast]

I met mr.pratchett at a show at the NT and got his autograph, but i think he has a valid point about this.

 

[Acidwell]

-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.

 

[Imperator Nick]

Terry Pratchett is a God. That is all.

 

[Billion Backs]

I'm fully aware of Deus Ex Machina. And I understand completely what he was saying. And what he was saying is that somehow Doctor Who is less valid of an entertainment source then say, a Fantasy novel. It would be like throwing out an ignorant-ass statement like video games can never be considered art.

Oh wait...

Ummm...

"I just wish that it was not classified as science fiction," he added.

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."

He didn't say it was less entertaining. He said it was less science-fiction.

There's a difference.

And it would be a rather factual thing to say that Doctor Who, on average, is NOT a hard science fiction show. Is it fun? Yeah, I'd say so. I've seen quite a few episodes myself, although I'm nowhere near one of my friends who even dresses up as the doctor whenever he can.

But it's not science fiction. Deus Ex Machina can be an okay resolution to a problem, but I think generally, it's viewed as bad taste or cheesy.

Science fiction should rely on science - real or imagined, for the most part imagined, really, to resolve the problems. Deus Ex Machina, especially in sense of "A plot element that didn't previously exist and has no logical explanation behind it.", doesn't really fit to well, I think.

But, whatever. It's like people don't read the whole fucking post or something.

 

[Billion Backs]

Mr Pratchet is entitled to his opinion. A very valid opinion stemming from vast experience in the matter at hand.

But it's just fiction, just like his books. Fiction can bend the rules and do as it pleases. So what if it strains belief? As long as it's amusing and good enough for a laugh, it should not matter. Keep enjoying the show Mr Pratchet and don't let it trouble you to much.

Fiction it is, all right. Entertaining, too, all right.

BUT NOT SCIENCE FICTION. That's the WHOLE argument in the opening post.

 

[edinflames]

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?

Seems to me to be inclusive of all Dr Who. I remember watching reruns of Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker's incarnations of the Doctor when I was a kid and the show has always been more fantasy than science fiction. Without CGI and the modern Who's budget, the old show was made enjoyable by strong concepts and excellent characters.

What he attacks, with some justice, about the late-Tennant/Smith episodes is the story structure. To be fair the show pretty much always good fun regardless of poor narrative devices, probably because of its strong characters, concepts and casting.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Thanks, it still seems to be lost on quite a few people that the only problem Pratchett has here is that the plot resolution isn't as strong or clever as it used to be, and that they're maybe relying too much on shiny effects and glossy sets and editing, and he's just hoping they'll go back to trying harder to have smart plots instead of:

1. Evil space thing
2. ???
3. Profit!

He does like it, he just knows it could be so much better with stronger threads running thru it.

 

[Abengoshis]

I do think that recently Doctor Who has got very stupid.

Talking to an oblivion continuum bomb to make it stop?
Pictures of angels become angels?
Space whales? Just...what!?
And with Tennant: Flying double decker buses....you get the picture...

 

[Kmadden2004]

It sounds like his gripes are more with the Russel T Davies era of Doctor Who, and if that is the case then I agree with him. I can't even begin to describe how pissed off I was with the way the third season ended (the world enslaved, mankind decimated, Master triumphant, then -POP- all back to normal... I MEAN COME ON!!!)

However, I'm seeing a lot less of the 'magic wand' approach with Moffat's tenure (though it's still early days). All the outcomes have been properly set-up and seem perfectly logical within the context of the plot and series...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

God...I was nearly torn in half there...

Until I realised Sir Pratchett was talking about the RTD episodes (Smith and Jones,Starship Titanic)

So, we have Pratchett bashes RTD. Now that I can agree with.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Ive not bothered with the rebooted series, I Used to watch the original series all the way to the end and that was it for me.

Do me a favour. Watch Blink (or The Empty Child if you don't like Tennant) and if you don't think it's as good as the originals, then I'll say no more.

For example:

Concerning the Weeping Angels, in the 'Blink' Episode, the Angels are made to freeze whenever the camera is on them, yet no characters are looking at them. Also, in that episode, it was never a problem to look an Angel in the eye. Also, when someone was 'killed' by them, anyone who knew them still had memory of them [Sparrow still remembered who that Officer fellow was].

In the latest ones, there were a few loopholes. Take, for instance, the moment where the Doctor is grabbed by his coat. Now, the camera turns to the Angels, who are frozen to stone, yet the Doctor isn't looking at them.

Now, if there are reasons for all this, then I'm happy to be stood corrected,

Right. In Flesh and Stone, it does state that the Angels don't have to turn to stone, it's just a defence mechanism when they think someone's watching them. So they may still be stone even when someone's not watching them. (The old trick in Blink is like sticking a mirror in front of a swamp dragon)

The "eye" trick only came from the progenitor Angel that the Bishop's were chasing. The one's in Blink were scavengers, not warriors. That's why they time-rip people instead of absorbing their cortexes and snapping their necks.

The memory wiping was caused from the time-spillage (which conveniently also erases the stupid Cyberman attacking London plot from Xmas)

You can see the stone change is subconscious defence when Amy is walking through them.

Any more questions?

 

[geldonyetich]

Popular media sucks.

It's developed for the lowest common denominator under the pretense that they make up the majority, and are too stupid to do anything other than be dazzled by pretty lights.

It's sort of pointless to point it out anymore.

 

[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.