Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't say he's wrong because i've had the same thoughts myself to be honest but i think it's the fact that it's aiming for the kids more than adults that causes it.
But as the man himself says it's damn entertaining!
But as the man himself says it's damn entertaining!
That's precisely what I was thinking. If Pratchett has such criticism for Dr. Who, he should pen a episode for them and show them how to do it "properly."Sylocat said:
I think I agree 100% with Mr Pratchett, and I think most people would as well because often favorite ep's are those that don't rely too much on the deus.
While a well-played DEM is worth it, it is occasionally more invigorating to see one that doesn't work, and there have been a few examples in the restart series that have done just that, where no matter how slick the Doctor is, he still can't arrive in time to make everything perfect. Davies had a few good strokes early on, but used it too much to make it plausible, and that carried into the Tennant days, pretty much forcing the new writers to include it as a means of their styles from time to time. In the Empty Child set, when Eccleston says "Just this once, Everybody Lives!" It really should have been something that we can see doesn't happen nearly enough as he'd like, despite the overwhelming amount of power at his hands. After that, with few exceptions, the Doctor wins, almost every time. It's often the ones where he doesn't that stick most in my mind, like The Girl in the Fireplace, The Fires of Pompeii, and Fear Her (even if it was a bit weird). There's plenty of examples where the Doctor pulls a victory out of his rump with nothing more than some excited babble, which is all well and good, but there are those times when we want to sit there and go "What? No....the Doctor...he has to fix it...he has to...He's the Doctor...but there's nothing he can do...", because watching the him trying to get there when he's too far away shows that he's not the omnipotent creature his companions et al believe him to be, and that not even he can do everything. Even with a time machine, you can't be two places at once, and I wouldn't mind seeing him come to that decision, Dark Knight style. Or, hey, if we wanted to really give him a moral quandary, show him confronted with such a decision, only to be lied to, and miss the opportunity to save both, and watch as he contemplates trying to go back on his own time line and change things or live without whatever he lost.
Now that would a developed narrative worthy of watching which way they take the DEM, no?
Now that would a developed narrative worthy of watching which way they take the DEM, no?
...I think my head just exploded from trying to pin that much awesome in one thought-space. Brilliant.Sylocat said:
Is Fry still set to write one? I thought that had fallen through?The_root_of_all_evil said:
I can't help, but disagree here. I've always found Pratchett's stories to be consistent within their universe. The rules have been set down, and he plays within them. If Doctor Who exists within "our" universe there should still be rules that apply.Nightfalke said:
(nerdrage)
OH, Bugger off, Pratchett!
And, OK, So maybe the Doctor is getting a little Deus Ex on us, but HE CAN TRAVEL THROUGH FUCKING TIME. Who the hell wouldn't become a God in the Machine after a little while of that?
And the Doctor's been at it for over 900 years, so I think Pratchetr can go eat Dalek Plunger!(/nerdrage)
OH, Bugger off, Pratchett!
And, OK, So maybe the Doctor is getting a little Deus Ex on us, but HE CAN TRAVEL THROUGH FUCKING TIME. Who the hell wouldn't become a God in the Machine after a little while of that?
And the Doctor's been at it for over 900 years, so I think Pratchetr can go eat Dalek Plunger!(/nerdrage)
I agree with Pratchett's opinions about Doctor Who.
He seems in many episodes to be a jesus like... "we need wine? got any water?" although in one episode he became a tinkerbell equivalent....
I want him to go head to head with something like him that isn't a dalek, the Master or a cyber-men.
a person that can magic wand his way through the story just as well as the doc ...and doing it for reasons that aren't misguided or wrong but ultimately best for everyone. He gets defeated by not Doc's wand or this person's wand...but by glaringly obvious science or psychology.
He seems in many episodes to be a jesus like... "we need wine? got any water?" although in one episode he became a tinkerbell equivalent....
I want him to go head to head with something like him that isn't a dalek, the Master or a cyber-men.
a person that can magic wand his way through the story just as well as the doc ...and doing it for reasons that aren't misguided or wrong but ultimately best for everyone. He gets defeated by not Doc's wand or this person's wand...but by glaringly obvious science or psychology.
Terry Pratchett (who, I will admit, is one of my all-time favourite writers) invented an entire new world that, while being fantasy, had entirely logical internal laws. Hell, even MAGIC became a elemental force, like water or wind or something, and characters in his books CANNOT break or bend those laws. So the interest of his books often lie in finding out how the characters respond to the organised illogic of the laws of the Discworld (as well as in the very clever satire on real world institutions and conventions). So, it would make sense, that the writer of a world where the characters are obedient to their fantasy world laws, might be a little frustrated at a series where the main character can basically do anything.
The problem with Dr Who, I think Terry Pratchett is trying to say, is that his powers are inconsistent and often just devices to move the storyline along. I think if we were all to make a list of various powers Dr Who has demonstrated in one episode, and then inexplicably lost in the next, it would be quite extensive! But, again as Terry Pratchett seems to imply, kudos to the Dr Who people for making a watchable and compelling series that people watch DESPITE the glaring inconsistencies of the Dr Who universe.
I like Terry Pratchett. I like Dr Who. I consider Terry Pratchett to be well within his rights to comment on a TV series... although whoever labelled this thread "Terry Pratchett attacks Dr Who" may have been a bit misguided
The problem with Dr Who, I think Terry Pratchett is trying to say, is that his powers are inconsistent and often just devices to move the storyline along. I think if we were all to make a list of various powers Dr Who has demonstrated in one episode, and then inexplicably lost in the next, it would be quite extensive! But, again as Terry Pratchett seems to imply, kudos to the Dr Who people for making a watchable and compelling series that people watch DESPITE the glaring inconsistencies of the Dr Who universe.
I like Terry Pratchett. I like Dr Who. I consider Terry Pratchett to be well within his rights to comment on a TV series... although whoever labelled this thread "Terry Pratchett attacks Dr Who" may have been a bit misguided
I'm sorry, BSG is a good Sci-Fi show. Dr. Who was decent when they had the first and second actor Mr. blah bleedle and frank tagwhoever and only three dumb earth bimbos following him
But what are they on now? the 11th Who and the billionth bimbo? Want soft sci? Go with a good stable one, like Lexx or Farscape.
Some shows need to know when it's time to die.
But what are they on now? the 11th Who and the billionth bimbo? Want soft sci? Go with a good stable one, like Lexx or Farscape.
Some shows need to know when it's time to die.
You do know that Pratchett's novels are usually parodies of regular fantasy tropes? Therefore he has every right to call out Doctor Who.Blimey said:
For what it's worth, I agree with him. This show needs more Chekov's Gun and less Deus Ex Machina.
I also think that Doctor Who is a bit crazy with its time period. I think that when you time-travel to a point in the future that's further ahead than the earliest known historical events are to the past, you're not really travelling to a year, you're traveling to a generic FUUUUTUUUUUREEEEEEE! Still, it's got plenty of charm to get a free ticket out of things like that, as Pratchett himself admits.
That said, I'm pretty sure if Pratchett actually attacked Doctor Who he would come out winner. Yes, with all of the doctors. Well, not at once.
That said, I'm pretty sure if Pratchett actually attacked Doctor Who he would come out winner. Yes, with all of the doctors. Well, not at once.
Well I understand his frustration, especially in the latest episodes, some elements are illogical, for instance:
On another note, I find it sadly ironic how
Still gonna continue watching though
if you're hunting an angel whose only weakness is that it stops when being seen, why on Earth would you bring plenty of guns and only a handful of torchlight instead of bringing tons of spotlight and strapping yourself with thousands of tiny creatures with eyes so that even if you're not looking, something else is looking at the angel(s) at all time ?
On another note, I find it sadly ironic how
in the 1996 movie's commentary, they describe the tiny 2 seconds kiss as being their main regret about the movie's story whereas in the new series, he frenched all of his companions and several other characters too.
Still gonna continue watching though
Opinion isn't fact, saying something IS good (and yes I like BSG) doesn't make it so, same with Doctor who. You think it needs to die, I think the opposite.LANCE420 said:
It's fun for me, it's not too preachy and up it's own ass with constant moral dilemmas and such.
As long as people watch a show, it has no need to die. I liked Farscape, didn't like Lexx so much, but they are a different form of science fiction, with different kinds of stories.
Good Point Made here ^. Also, If you read "The Science of Discworld" You will learn ALOT about how both discworld and "roundworld" (aka earth) Works. It kinda does a chapter of story set in the fictional world and then the next chapter more or less explaining why and how it happens, and the why and how of how our real-world equivalent works.AboveUp said:
Also, Commander Vimes was just doing his job, Its nice to see The watch pulled out of decline
This reminds me of my dad's opinion on Star Wars. He says that while Star Wars may be entertaining, it's not really scientific in its "sci-fi"ness in the way that many books he likes are. Many things in Star Wars have little relation to real world technology, whereas the things my dad likes tend to be more speculative science fiction, wherethe cool technology is based on modern theory.Susan Arendt said:
If anyone has grounds to complain about the writing/storytelling of Dr. Who, I'd say Terry Pratchett qualifies. He may write silly fantasy novels, but at least his fictional universe is fairly consistent to its own rules. Dr. Who seems to bend and shift from episode to episode, just so they can fit something into the story.
The funny thing about this scrap of criticism is that Pratchett probably can leave his brain on a hook at the door. Yet he's the one complaining about having to do it. Yes, Doctor Who is pure entertainment. It is not a story of "functional magic" as TV Tropes might call it, but rather a series of excuses for the things that occur. However, these excuses are completely justified within the Doctor Who universe. The show is just a rare example of a fictional world where the protagonist is, quite literally, capable of anything.
Now, for Pratchett this might come across as a bit of a case of "Boring Invincible Hero", to evoke another trope, but the Doctor's limits are there in the show, they're just not in the technology, but rather in his ideas. Yes, the Doctor is a genius. He's lived for more than nine hundred years and still has a youthful mind and a spring in his step. The drawback of this is his insanity, which seems to be, ironically enough, the thing that Pratchett's missed in his comments or his frustration.
The Doctor's flaw is in his ideas. The Doctor Who series has always cast humans as a kind of "creative" species, made for dealing very well with emergency situations. This is why the Doctor needs a human companion, and on the occasion where he has none he often ends up in hot water - they fill in the massive hole in his problem-solving. That is, common sense, which is something most mad geniuses don't have.
Every episode of the modern series, in one way or another, exploits this limitation of ideas to propose a challenge to the Doctor and create much of the tension. Yes, he usually wins, but not without help. And it is that limit that you have to look for to see the show's real depth, which is a bit more subtle than the Doctor's antics and all the superficial technological wonders that are just there to be cool.
Doctor Who takes a leaf from Shakespeare's book in the sense that its themes are more universal than specific to the setting, and it is that which makes it different from most sci-fi. The best of sci-fi often investigates "special themes" of the future, which humans do not have to deal with in the current era. Doctor Who shares more in common with "low media" in that it is about looking at human pain, the struggle, and whether the Doctor likes this or not, the concepts of "good" and "evil" (something we've seen in films like Lord of the Rings). But not all sci-fi has to be high culture, and not all of it has to look into strange and alienating themes.
Doctor Who is a show about humanity, even if the central character is an alien, and in this way it has great value. It should not be discounted as a science fiction story simply because it has more common, modern themes than futuristic ones - the science fiction is there, but simply used as a backdrop and framework for the classical challenge. The Doctor uses science to solve problems, not magic, so we cannot class it as fantasy. That would simply please Pratchett's ego rather than solve the debate or be fair to the show, which remains a brilliant example of good television.
Now, for Pratchett this might come across as a bit of a case of "Boring Invincible Hero", to evoke another trope, but the Doctor's limits are there in the show, they're just not in the technology, but rather in his ideas. Yes, the Doctor is a genius. He's lived for more than nine hundred years and still has a youthful mind and a spring in his step. The drawback of this is his insanity, which seems to be, ironically enough, the thing that Pratchett's missed in his comments or his frustration.
The Doctor's flaw is in his ideas. The Doctor Who series has always cast humans as a kind of "creative" species, made for dealing very well with emergency situations. This is why the Doctor needs a human companion, and on the occasion where he has none he often ends up in hot water - they fill in the massive hole in his problem-solving. That is, common sense, which is something most mad geniuses don't have.
Every episode of the modern series, in one way or another, exploits this limitation of ideas to propose a challenge to the Doctor and create much of the tension. Yes, he usually wins, but not without help. And it is that limit that you have to look for to see the show's real depth, which is a bit more subtle than the Doctor's antics and all the superficial technological wonders that are just there to be cool.
Doctor Who takes a leaf from Shakespeare's book in the sense that its themes are more universal than specific to the setting, and it is that which makes it different from most sci-fi. The best of sci-fi often investigates "special themes" of the future, which humans do not have to deal with in the current era. Doctor Who shares more in common with "low media" in that it is about looking at human pain, the struggle, and whether the Doctor likes this or not, the concepts of "good" and "evil" (something we've seen in films like Lord of the Rings). But not all sci-fi has to be high culture, and not all of it has to look into strange and alienating themes.
Doctor Who is a show about humanity, even if the central character is an alien, and in this way it has great value. It should not be discounted as a science fiction story simply because it has more common, modern themes than futuristic ones - the science fiction is there, but simply used as a backdrop and framework for the classical challenge. The Doctor uses science to solve problems, not magic, so we cannot class it as fantasy. That would simply please Pratchett's ego rather than solve the debate or be fair to the show, which remains a brilliant example of good television.
My problem with this series is that Moffat's writing is aimed at 12 year olds and so the acting and directing goes that way too, there's no subtlty anymore, nothing to think about, everything's too obvious and predictable