Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[meowman]

May I say before I begin that I don't really think it's a big deal - he's not "attacking", he's "criticising" - making a point with an aim to display room for improvement. And, as Yahtzee says, we need critics or we'd be going around wearing shoes on our heads (or something to that effect, I can't remember the actual analogy). However, there are a few comments I would quite like to reply to...

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

Hey man, he churned out some of the best books of the last generation (and indeed this one, it's gone on so long) at a rate of over a book/year for over 20 years. He's given it up now ( I believe), but only because his Alkzheimer's means he struggles to read, let alone write. He may be fussy (this isn't the first seemingly inoffensive thing he's spoken out about) but his points are all valid, and the man is a creative genius. Give him a break.

Then again, probably the only thing in the world I will ever admit to being a 'fanboy' of is the Discworld series, so this is a very biased opinion.

I think people are just half reading what he said up there. He takes the same issue with Doctor Who that I take with Harry Potter.

"Oh no! X Has happened! We're DOOOOOOOMED!"
"Wait a second I just happen to have learned the EXACT spell needed to counter X in a class last week, Good thing X didn't happen 8 days ago."
"Phew Harry the world is saved."

It's just plot device use, read a discworld novel and it isn't just X and -X situations. THINGS HAPPEN IN THE WHOLE NARRATIVE. They aren't just effervescent.

Agreed. Pratchett's setups are brilliant. I like Rowling's creativity like I like Doctor Who's, but unfortunately one thing they seem to find hard is winding a solution into the plot seamlessly rather then sticking them in awkwardly.

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

Exactly, in fact since Neil Gaiman is doing one too, I'd love to see a Good Omens sequel set to the backdrop of Doctor Who.

oh yes please

To end this post, some blatant fanboy-ism - Pratchett is the only author who can combine fantasy worthy of Tolkien, comedy worthy of Wodehouse and contemporary and classical philosophy worthy of the combined Oxford and Cambridge philosophy departments combined, all dealt out with Ivy-league level dollops of intelligence. If you hadn't read his books, do yourself a favour. May I recommend Good Omens, written by him and Neil Gaiman, another worthy author, or an early Discworld book (the later ones will assume you know things about characters, and therefor you will miss some of the references).

OK, I'll go away now, before I think of another thing to rant about him

 

[Malcheior Sveth]

To be honest, I have to agree with him. They didn't used to do the "make crap up whenever you need to" style of science nearly as much in the old Doctor Who. That's something that came in when they revived the series (even more so when Tennant took over), and it really bugs me.

 

[secretsantaone]

There really needs to be a set-up. The latest one had it to some degree where he changed the gravity, but with episodes where he pulls a 'oh look the Tardis/Sonic Screwdriver can solve this problem because it's from the future' on us, it gets a bit annoying. Blink was fantastic, not only because it was shit-your-pants scarey but because it was established early on that the angels couldn't look at eachother and so the ending was satisfying.
It needs Chekov's gun, something that has been established to perform a specific function being used for a specific function.

Otherwise it just feels like a bit of a cop-out.

 

[Nickolai77]

I wouldn't call Doctor Who a sci-fi, so i agree with Pratchett on that. I view sci-fi's as having a reasonable grounding in scientific understanding, raising themes and ideas surrounding the implications of possible events and inventions in the future. (District 9, Star Trek for exhample). Doctor Who, (and Star Wars) don't really do this, they are fantasy films aimed at entertaining people, they are not trying to be clever about future events.

Now, i don't watch a huge amount of Doctor Who, so my opinion is limited here, but to me Pratchett is just attacking the shows over reliance of "makeitupasyougalongeum". I don't know if i agree, because i don't watch the show enough, but i know where he's coming from. I've seen some pretty poor Rp'ers do it in the past and it is a bit annoying.

 

[Marmooset]

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

Naw, that was Terri Schiavo.

 

[khoryos]

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

Naw, that was Terri Schiavo.

He was diagnosed with Alzheimers a year or two ago, but he's still going strong.
And he's not wrong about the show, either - although it has gotten a lot better with Moffat in charge, the solutions to the episodes are always set up earlier on - I particularly liked the end of this week's episode, which used an element I'd completely forgotten.

 

[Bagaloo]

I love Pratchett, and I love Doctor Who.

I don't agree with Pratchett in this instance though; the fast paced and frantic nature of Doctor Who is what makes it special, as well as all the 'random stuff' they make up

 

[Twilight_guy]

Wait. Most sci-fi I have even seen uses the Star Trek method of rewriting the laws of physics as it goes and just making shit up on the fly. If you have to bound your sci0fi within know physics then it gets a lot more boring because real life physics are kind of tedious (No light sabers? madness!). It's not supposed to make sense in the real world, that's why its science fiction not fiction with science. If you talk quantum mechanics with a turn-of-the-century physics then he'd call you made. If you talked general relativity a hundred years ago you'd be considered insane. The "rules" of science are relative to who is in charge. If the show is entertaining then who cares if there spewing goobedy-gook? Isn't the point to make a show that people watch (something they have succeeded at)?

 

[scw55]

Legend

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

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

That would be awesome.

I agree with him at times. For example the inconsistencies in how the TARDIS works. At times it floats adrift, at times it automatically seeks out land, at still others it returns to the Doctor, depending on how the writer needs to use it

 

[Zero=Interrupt]

To be honest, I have to agree with him. They didn't used to do the "make crap up whenever you need to" style of science nearly as much in the old Doctor Who. That's something that came in when they revived the series (even more so when Tennant took over), and it really bugs me.

I agree. The older shows relied more on solid writing (and the humor was fantastic) and the new RTD ones are all bang-flash plot-lite. It's like a gay George Lucas wrote the Eccleston/Tennant years.

I'd venture to say that it isn't Doctor Who that Pratchett has a problem with: it's more Davies' writing than anything else. In that regard, he should call it like it is and not question the show in particular, but the writer. That said, there's no shortage of decent writing talent across the pond. Dan Abnett and Warren Ellis come to mind...

 

[samsonguy920]

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'm guessing he's under some weird impression previous Who's didn't use Technobabble [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnoBabble] or Deus Ex Machina [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeusExMachina].
But he is one to talk since his own novels use a lot of Loophole Abuse [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoopholeAbuse]. Which, technically, can be the same thing he is accusing Doctor Who of using.

This is one case where I don't mind the subject criticizing a material. Since, for once, it fits within their experience. He is just a bit off the mark all the same.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

yeah, the science is rather weak, but that is where the "fiction" part of the name comes in. It's not supposed to be sound science, but that's what makes it fun.

 

[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.

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.

 

[secretsantaone]

-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.

At least these were explained and justified, not just 'sonic screwdriver can do everything'.

 

[Malcheior Sveth]

snip

At least these were explained and justified, not just 'sonic screwdriver can do everything'.

That's the other thing. In the old Doctor Who, the sonic screwdriver was not nearly as abused as it is now. It opened door locks, and that was about it as far as "furthering the plot" stuff that it did (it was also occasionally used during repairs on various things, like K-9) but it wasn't a magic wand. And it did get broken several times.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Ok I just lost a lot of respect for pratchett if this article is true.

Simply because his writing is complete make it up as you go along ballocks aswell (admittedly amazing ballocks to which i worship and own every book of but still ballocks in the made up sense).

Example: 7th son of a 7th son become a wizard, someone able to manipulate the magic around them, yet somehow the 7th son of a 7th son of a 7th son becomes a source of magic just in one sentence. And somehow a swamp dragon which normally breathes fire from its mouth and nostrils can rearrange its entire digestive system to fire backwards and fly fast enough to knock a full grown regular dragon out of the sky just by the force of it flying past. Where normally if you even kick a swamp dragon it explodes. Such forces of flight would make the first swamp dragon explode within the first second. Also golems, they gain life by having a piece of magic paper stuck in their head, no special clay just a piece of paper with magic words written on it. And somehow writing regular words on it can make them self possessing.

Sorry pratchet but Ballocks to you bashing on Dr Who. They can at least give complex explainations to thigns happening rather than just "Magic". While awesome, its a pretty shitty plot excuse.

 

[DancePuppets]

I must admit he pretty much sums up the reasons I have hated some of the episodes in the past. Generally I love it, but every now and then an episode comes along (like the last episode of series 3 with magic psychic satellites that make the Doctor better and give him superpowers ARGH!!!) which makes me want to punch Russell T. Davies repeatedly. Luckily thus far the silliness has been fun so Moffat is currently safe, plus Karen Gillan and Matt Smith both seem excellent.

 

[Zig13]

I completely agree, Steven Moffatt relies too heavily on deus ex machina for cliff-hangers. An exception might be the empty child cliffhanger which was pretty clever. The latest one was just stupid though. Cliffhangers are hardly necessary anyway - people should watch the second half of a two parter for the entertainment value rather than to find out what happens next (and of course they will). On the other hand, Terry Pratchett has said himself that his books make better plays than films as they are all about the dialogue. If Doctor Who was to take the same approach it wouldn't be half as successful as it is today. The fact that Michael Bay films do well just proves that considerable swathes of the population care for nothing but action in their media.

I think really the problem is that Dr Who as a mainly sci-fi program has no right to effectively say 'that's the case because of magic'. Classic sci-fi such as star trek always manages to come up with some plausible pseudo science but Doctor Who sometimes seems to be hardly trying... In contrast, the discworld has magic built in and even explains the magic on a scientific level. And even with magic, Terry Pratchett very rarely falls back on deus ex machinima which is generally seen as a poor storytelling technique. I think it's safe to say he has the high-ground on this one...

 

[johnman]

I fucking hate doctor who ever since Chris ellecstone left. The recent episode with the Daleks was bloody terriable. In the space of 10 minutes they are able to convert spitfires to fire lasers, make them space worthy and train the pilots to fly in space. I know its not suppose to be realistic but there has to be asemblence of realism or it jsut becomes bloody ludricous. Not even a child would find that entertaining. I miss the old doctor who episodes where genuially diffcult events and desiscions took place.

Science FICTION.

For crying out loud, the whole idea of doctor Who is that it's supposed to be fun and outrageous. When has Doctor Who ever been serious?

Some of the older episodes are incrediably serious, they still retain tyheir sense of fun but are grounded in harsh reality. The cyber-men were vicious killing machines, and that would be demonstrated before they they could be stopped, instead of the clanky hydrulic muppets we see today. In the episode where they visit the creation of the daleks, the doctor steps on a landmine, hundreds of prisoners are shot in cold blood while trying to escape captivity and the Davros happily destroys the planet, all the while the doctor is unable to come up with an effective solution to stop it all, until he resorts to bombing half the planet. In the recent episodes he would save the children (oh please think of the CHILDREN! That episode with the cybermen in the victorian age is a prime example), get rid of the daleks (without killing them!, and everyone would live happily ever after etc etc.