Pratchett Attacks Doctor Who

[EeveeElectro]

But... he makes stuff up too =( there's nothing wrong with it.
It's his opinion I suppose, but pot kettle black.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Nothing wrong with long shows. Married with Children and South Park are examples of good and long shows. But science fiction shows are largely dependent on the universe they are created in. That in mind, Sci-Fi is limitless in potential stories and characters. I shouldn't have been critical of the Doctor Who series for being too long. But if I was the creative force of Doctor Who, I would have moved on by now. I had a successful show, and its time to use my creditability to make a new show. BEFORE I CANCEL IT, so if it sucks balls I can get a new job while surviving on the show while it becomes like Lost.

BTW, does the BBC have commitment issues? One thing if I ever do get into the TV business, I'll make my actors sign contracts. I won't follow the BBC policy of hiring month to month. They must be exempt employees, like McDonalds.

They do exist to make money, and Doctor Who is a British icon, why throw it away? There's still a whole lot of running to do. It will end when the Doctor can no longer regenerate and that will be when the 12th one dies.

What makes you say that commitment part? Because the Doctor has had a few actors? Christopther Eccleston didn't want to stay on, David Tennant wanted to but felt it was time. The Doctor is a character where people leaving the show doesn't stop it.

I admit it was initially used as a cheap way to keep the show going back in the 60's but they eventually revealed a story element and created regeneration to explain it. It keeps the show from getting stale, and that's one thing Doctor Who has never been in my opinion.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Christopther Eccleston did not want to keep doing it? he was the best one!

Look, I don't know if they actually have to replace actors due to the storyline. But if they don't, the BBC has some seriously fucked business strategy. It costs a corporation in the US an average 40,000 dollars to hire an employee, especially more with non-exempt contractors, like actors and CEO's. To hire more actors does not save them any money. It costs alot. But the creators and the network would have stopped if it wasn't profitable.

And whatever, I've only been talking about "What I would have done if I was in their shoes." Obviously, they've accomplished more than I can say I have. I wish I thought of Doctor Who. Of course, I'm a American, and I have my doubts if the general American public would have liked it.

He didn't want to be typecast, it was a shame. I like all the Doctors, I think each of them add something to the role.

I'm not sure how that works, so I won't pretend to, I just watch the show and enjoy it for what it is to me.

I have a few friends in the US that love it, but I don't know about the majority. Thanks for the discussion

 

[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.

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.

So neither authors wrote very hard sci-fi, but if we define those as soft sci-fi, we'll need to coin a whole new grade of snotling gas sci-fi to make room for Dr. Who on the end of the scale.

 

[L-J-F]

I think by "Science Fiction" they mean "Fictional Science".

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wait, Neil Gaiman is doing an episode of Doctor Who? The same Neil Gaiman responsible for The Sandman and the Neverwhere books? ...Excuse me while I change my pants.

Ho yus [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8503737.stm]. Sir Stephen Fry as well, allegedly.

 

[Queen Michael]

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.

Also...

"I'm sorry about this, but I just don't think that you can instantly transport a whole hospital onto the moon without all of the windows blowing out. Oh! You use a force field, do you?! And there's the trouble; one sentence makes it all OK."

I never knew that you owned your very own Teleporter, Pratchett. You must share that wonder of Science sometime.

Calumon: Doctor Who now?

He never said he owned his own teleporter. He just pointed out an obvious flaw in the fictional tech.

 

[WindKnight]

Ok, having readthe actual BLOG he made at sfx several days before this, I have to roll my eyes at the way this was reported.

Attack? ATTACK? ATTACK?

How can you call the blog an attack.

it wasn't 'this show sucks'. it wasn't 'this show blows and I hate it.'

It was 'i enjoy this show, but these few details niggle and annoy me, and it could be better'.

And he is right. I've enjoyed the new series quite a but, but numerous times I've gone 'wait, what? how did that happen?' it doesn't bother me as much, but yes, i have had a few 'oh, not gain,' and 'oh great, reset button again.' moments.

Seriously though, I mast take issue with the OP posting it with that title. Totally inflammatory, sensationalist and INACCURATE. And if your excuse is you just copied the guardian headline, then shame on you for laziness.

 

[Alar]

First of all, I think calling it an attack is silly.

Secondly, I find myself tending to agree with Pratchett. There is little or no science backing up Doctor Who in most of the series. That doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable. Hell no! I love Doctor Who. It just seems more like a Fantasy show, with the setting having to do with space, aliens, and time.

 

[VulakAerr]

He's right, you know. Doctor Who is a lot of fun sometimes but it drives me insane with poor story-telling sometimes. Particularly this two-parter that we just saw. They don't even seem to know how to set up a story lately. Yes, the Doctor is "magical" but being ahead of the audience isn't the same as inventing solutions as you go.

Make.
More.
Sense.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

I completely understand Pratchett's problems with the show, the writing under T.Davies was extremely poor and it does get a bit too daft at times.

I assume he has no problems with the older (classic) series though, as i believe all these problems are products of the reboot. I have to say the newest series is promising, but Pratchett is right, the doctor needs to stop making things up as he goes, a little clear explanation does go along way.

 

[Susan Arendt]

For the most part I agree, and think that simply because he writes fantasy books doesn't mean he's not allowed to have an opinion on the ridiculousness of other's writing.

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?

Discworld creator Terry Pratchett has taken umbrage at the storytelling of Doctor Who, calling it "ludicrous", and saying that it "breaks most of the laws of narrative".

...

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."

*cough cough*

[small]Please don't ban me[/small]

And yet he goes on to find fault with how the show approaches science. As I said before, though apparently not quite clearly enough, if he wants to discuss that it's bad at storytelling fine, but kicking it for not being hard science is just plain pointless.

 

[high_castle]

The thing is...Doctor Who is still fun and entertaining. There's a lot of pressure from the SF community these days to pen books and screenplays based in hard science. Or at least use lots of sciency sounding words so you can confuse your audience into thinking it's hard. And don't get me wrong, I love the works of authors like Alistair Reynolds, who have legitimate backgrounds in the sort of science they're writing about. But that's not the penultimate definition of the genre.

Face it, Star Wars, Firefly, and countless other beloved SF franchises have very little basis in actual science. This doesn't make them bad or any less valid. At the end of the day, most folk care more about the stories and the characters than the science. I watch Doctor Who because I want to see the titular character's continued growth and evolution. I hope for new insights into his past and future. The pseudo-science sets the stage, but it's just flash. The characters are the heart of the show, and that's why it's so compelling.

At the end of the day, we tend to sympathize with and relate to the human element more than anything else. Even in hard SF, you need relatable characters or you're story's going to fall flat. I would wager that characters are more important than science. The popularity of shows like Doctor Who are testimony of that fact.

 

[AboveUp]

SNIP

You were implying he had no idea who Terry Pratchett is, despite that person basically just quoting Pratchett in his post.

It's even there in the quotation part of your own post.

 

[wildpeaks]

Well I understand his frustration, especially in the latest episodes, some elements are illogical, for instance:

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

Remember they did think it was just the one angel in the beginning of the episode, though

True but

Spoiler

I was already under the impression that it didn't make sense to bring only guns and a few torchlights back when they hadn't even entered the cavern, a fortiori afterwards

 

[AboveUp]

SNIP

You were implying he had no idea who Terry Pratchett is, despite that person basically just quoting Pratchett in his post.

It's even there in the quotation part of your own post.

To my opinion you can see from his post that he doesn't know pratchett at all

we may differ on this but that's what I stick with

How can he not know Pratchett if he directly quotes him as joke in response to something Pratchett is saying? Twice in a row even!

I think you may need to read the books again to get Terry Pratchett's sense of humor if you didn't get the joke that was obviously there.

 

[Wildrow12]

[HEADING=2]Hey, I have a cool idea: why don't people READ THE ENTIRE POST.[/HEADING]

Prachett says at the bottom that he still enjoys/watches Doctor Who. He just takes exception to the overuse of the Magic Wand approach in a Sci-Fi series. I believe that his point is that Doctor Who is a very "soft-sci" in its approach, and that he likes to see more "hard-sci" in his shows.

Are people not allowed to have an opinion anymore without being insulted?

Reading? Not raging like a fanboy? On the internets? Oh, Scott...you are such a dreamer.

 

[tzimize]

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.

Fantasy

Science Fiction

Taste a bit on those two words, where does fantasy/randomness fit. Where does logic fit?

 

[GuerrillaClock]

His argument falls down when he says it's entertaining. Any other concerns are tiny in comparison. It's Saturday night TV, not a hard-science brain-fuckathon.

Also, he doesn't take into account the Karen Gillan factor.

 

[Jonesy911]

Well I've always thought Doctor Who was a bag of smelly tripe and now I have the backing of a world famous author

 

[Therumancer]

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.

In a real science fiction story the author is going to go on about explaining why space ships are shaped like bubbles (ie "Bio Of A Space Tyrant"), how artificial gravity works, and similar things, as he tells the story since those things are what influances the resolution. In space fantasy, you have guys blasting away with their ray guns, and racing space ships around, with little explanation for how it works... "we do this because it's cool". It's sort of like how you have ships exploding into fireballs in space... that couldn't happen, and if you see that, it's a good sign that it's not real science fiction but simply a work of fantasy with the developers trying to be cool.

I guess it's because your everyman, doesn't want to listen to an explanation on how something works, he just wants to see aliens and laser guns.. yet still wants to feel fairly smart as he's watching this stuff.

Overall I think Terry Pratchett is right, though in general I think it mostly comes down to the fact that they should be more honest within the genere, and what it's all about. Strictly speaking I do not think Doctor Who should be given credit as a work of science fiction, especially nowadays.

To use the whole "Transporting a hospital to the moon" thing as an example, a real science fiction author might very well use the whole "force field" thing, but would also explain how that force field is hypothetically generated, and how it's going to prevent the windows and such from blowing out along with other things.

If you like read a series like Piers Anthony's "Bio Of A Space Tyrant", Asimov's "Foundation", etc... you'll find a lot of musing on the subject, especially with Piers Anthony where he explains pretty clearly how the tech is supposed to work and as a result why certain things happen, or need to be done in a specific way. Foundation is more about sociology and such though, rather than technology.