Originally Posted by John Dough:
“He's right DW is childish tripe.:sleep:”
“He's right DW is childish tripe.:sleep:”
dont watch it then, simples
we love it
Terry Pratchett criticises Doctor Who, accuses it of makeitupasyougoalongeum
2 of 8
Originally Posted by aardvark85:
“You think?
However that's not his point. What he is saying is that the viewer should be able to anticipate the solution, and that you should have some degree of continuity between stories.
For instance, Blink does this quite well (ignoring the whole paradox thing) - and while you expect the solution will be based on Sally and/or Larry getting into the tardis and then the Dr does X, the ACTUAL solution is applying something that we've already been told, which is that angels can't move when observed. That's 'fair'.
However, take Last of the Timelords - again there is an apparent solution, and an actual one, but the actual one is pure Deus ex machina (almost literally) - and there has been nothing to hint at this being the solution (leaving aside it's absurdity, that isn't relevant).
Look at most episodes of the new series - a lot of them do not let you work out the answer. So far Moffatt is the exception, but changing the rules of weeping angels doesn't bode well.”
“You think?
However that's not his point. What he is saying is that the viewer should be able to anticipate the solution, and that you should have some degree of continuity between stories.
For instance, Blink does this quite well (ignoring the whole paradox thing) - and while you expect the solution will be based on Sally and/or Larry getting into the tardis and then the Dr does X, the ACTUAL solution is applying something that we've already been told, which is that angels can't move when observed. That's 'fair'.
However, take Last of the Timelords - again there is an apparent solution, and an actual one, but the actual one is pure Deus ex machina (almost literally) - and there has been nothing to hint at this being the solution (leaving aside it's absurdity, that isn't relevant).
Look at most episodes of the new series - a lot of them do not let you work out the answer. So far Moffatt is the exception, but changing the rules of weeping angels doesn't bode well.”
Doesn't the argument apply to previous series, also? What about the amulet in "The Greatest Show in the Galaxy" from Season 25 in 1988? Who could have known it would magically appear on the tip of the Doctor's umbrella and save the day?
Originally Posted by MiltonBlake:
“Hello
Ask him again in a week.
He'll tell you it's half past three.”
“Hello
Ask him again in a week.
He'll tell you it's half past three.”
Hilarious.
Oh no, wait.
It was deeply unfunny.
Originally Posted by MiltonBlake:
“Hello
Ask him again in a week.
He'll tell you it's half past three.”
“Hello
Ask him again in a week.
He'll tell you it's half past three.”
Originally Posted by Muttley76:
“You know what, my Grandmother died of Alzheimer's disease, and let me tell you it was no laughing matter in spite of what some people seem to think. Let's hope you don't have to see a person you love losing all sense of who they are and effectively dying mentally years before their physical body does.”
“You know what, my Grandmother died of Alzheimer's disease, and let me tell you it was no laughing matter in spite of what some people seem to think. Let's hope you don't have to see a person you love losing all sense of who they are and effectively dying mentally years before their physical body does.”
My grandfather suffered from it, too. Horrible. A terrible strain on the family as well as devastating for the sufferer when they know its happening to them. That sort of 'joke' is totally out of order.
Originally Posted by MiltonBlake:
“Hello
@lach doch mal/@Muttley76/@Webslark
I think my humour, in this instance, could be seen as a little noir'ish.
But I'm sure I'm only reflecting Pratchett's own tone, when he considers his predicament.
He has already given speeches where he exhibits the same 'gallows humour'.
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger and what does kill us, should be mocked.
That's the human way.”
“Hello
@lach doch mal/@Muttley76/@Webslark
I think my humour, in this instance, could be seen as a little noir'ish.
But I'm sure I'm only reflecting Pratchett's own tone, when he considers his predicament.
He has already given speeches where he exhibits the same 'gallows humour'.
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger and what does kill us, should be mocked.
That's the human way.”
It's not 'noir'ish', I'm afraid; it's sick and entirely wrong. If Pratchett chooses to use such a tone in considering his illness, then that's fine. It's HIS illness. What you have done is mock the fact he is going to die of Alzheimer's disease. What would you say to someone with AIDS? Cancer?
Pratchett's 'gallows' humour is his choice. He doesn't need you to stick the boot in simply because he chooses to use humour to come to terms with his illness.
Just sick.
Originally Posted by John Dough:
“It's ALWAYS been rubbish.”
“It's ALWAYS been rubbish.”
Thank you for coming on to a forum full of passionate who fans to point that out
TV is rubbish FULL STOP. Television, in my view, is simply what you make of it. Thats why it's there, and that is why different people enjoy different programmes.
Fool.
EDIT - I see you've been coming back again and again just to repeat what you have already said. You can have your view, but please do not keep repeating it without adding to the discussion
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus:
“What you have done is mock the fact he is going to die of Alzheimer's disease.”
“What you have done is mock the fact he is going to die of Alzheimer's disease.”
Hello
Well, no- I haven't.
I made light of a characteristic of Alzheimers.
A part, not the whole.
Originally Posted by scumcat:
“dont watch it then, simples
we love it”
“dont watch it then, simples
we love it”
You have to watch it to realise how silly it is, simples.
I think he is refering to narrative technique rather than "science".
It's a funny thing but if you let people know how the story will be resolved, prior to it actually be resolved, then people just accept the resolution.
For example in "Blink" we were told over and over that the angels will freeze if looked at, and that's why they don't even look at themselves.
So when the resolution came (angels standing around the Tardis and the Tardis vanishing leaving the angels looking at each other and therfore frozen) people just accepted it without a murmur.
RTD had trouble with this technique though. Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.
It's a funny thing but if you let people know how the story will be resolved, prior to it actually be resolved, then people just accept the resolution.
For example in "Blink" we were told over and over that the angels will freeze if looked at, and that's why they don't even look at themselves.
So when the resolution came (angels standing around the Tardis and the Tardis vanishing leaving the angels looking at each other and therfore frozen) people just accepted it without a murmur.
RTD had trouble with this technique though. Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.
Originally Posted by outside:
“Doesn't the argument apply to previous series, also? What about the amulet in "The Greatest Show in the Galaxy" from Season 25 in 1988? Who could have known it would magically appear on the tip of the Doctor's umbrella and save the day?”
“Doesn't the argument apply to previous series, also? What about the amulet in "The Greatest Show in the Galaxy" from Season 25 in 1988? Who could have known it would magically appear on the tip of the Doctor's umbrella and save the day?”
Indeed (though unfamiliar with the story, stopped watching by then) it's not that it never happened before, but the number of times. It's acceptable that a 900 yr old alien with advanced technology will have solutions we don't know, and it's a bit formulaic if he always gives you all the info - although of course that is why there are assistants/companions -
so if they pull a rabbit once every 10 stories or so, you expect it (Star Trek did it and they had lots of writers because that is how US TV works): But in new series who it has been much more than once a season, and having half the stories like this does become tedious (and eventually stops you trying to work out the answer).
Arguably the worst DeM is of course Jack.
Originally Posted by MiltonBlake:
“Hello
Well, no- I haven't.
I made light of a characteristic of Alzheimers.
A part, not the whole.”
“Hello
Well, no- I haven't.
I made light of a characteristic of Alzheimers.
A part, not the whole.”
That doesn't make it okay, you know.
Originally Posted by Muttley76:
“As per usual DS put a bit of an unfair spin on the article, he wasn't wholly critical of the show, indeed he is a regular viewer of it, as they later state, but he, as a writer of sci-fi himself is surely entitled, not to mention more than qualified, to make constructive critical comments of the show?
I do feel that DS have at least in part taking his comments out of context to make a more dramatic headline as the so often the case these days.”
“As per usual DS put a bit of an unfair spin on the article, he wasn't wholly critical of the show, indeed he is a regular viewer of it, as they later state, but he, as a writer of sci-fi himself is surely entitled, not to mention more than qualified, to make constructive critical comments of the show?
I do feel that DS have at least in part taking his comments out of context to make a more dramatic headline as the so often the case these days.”
Yep, I'll go with that, of all currently active authors qualified to comment on Doctor Who he'd be right up there at the top of my list as probably the biggest active name in sci-fi / fantasy today. His points are certainly valid too, the RTD stories did resort to 'where did THAT come from' a few times too many to be comfortable. That's not to say they were BAD stories of course, I thouroughly enjoyed them, just that they could have been better. I also suspect that article was written (or the interview for it anyway) before the new series had hit screens.
Now if Mr Pratchett would care to show us how to do it better.... Pratchett and Gaiman writing an episode each of Doctor Who in series 6 / Fnarg2 would be something very special to see.
I have trouble understanding the doctors assistant accent, not very clear in Scottish.
The graphics on the opening credits are too chunky making it difficult to distinguish some of the letters of the actors names.
Dumbed down and sexed up for a younger target audience me thinks. Sorry just my opinion.
The graphics on the opening credits are too chunky making it difficult to distinguish some of the letters of the actors names.
Dumbed down and sexed up for a younger target audience me thinks. Sorry just my opinion.
Originally Posted by AmishWanted:
“
Dumbed down and sexed up for a younger target audience me thinks.”
“
Dumbed down and sexed up for a younger target audience me thinks.”
If you want 'dumbing down' just look at the Slitheen. I've not seen any evidence that Moffat has dumbed down in the slightest. Quite the opposite actually.
Anyway, I tried reading The Colour of Magic many years ago and found it was such trash that I never finished it.
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.”
“Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.”
No it's not. It's just a technique, a narrative device among others. It's called a Chekov's gun. And like any other narrative technique, it can be used or not, it can be overused or underplayed. Just for the record : there are no absolute necessity in fiction work. Not even the narrative schematic (the five key moments in a story) isn't a necessity as proven by the "in medias res" beginnings.
If there were any necessity, French wouldn't have been able to invent Nouveau Roman in the 50's.
So you'd better check what you consider basic stuff before stating them as some kind of truth.
Originally Posted by John Dough:
“He's right DW is childish tripe.:sleep:”
“He's right DW is childish tripe.:sleep:”
Can't be that bad if you like visiting the forum.
Originally Posted by anielled:
“You have to watch it to realise how silly it is, simples.”
“You have to watch it to realise how silly it is, simples.”
How many times do you have to watch it to know you don't like it?
Anyway......
Big Terry has a point, although more about last season than this season. The god complex is pretty valid.
Big Terry has a point, although more about last season than this season. The god complex is pretty valid.
Originally Posted by Kapellmeister:
“If you want 'dumbing down' just look at the Slitheen. I've not seen any evidence that Moffat has dumbed down in the slightest. Quite the opposite actually.”
“If you want 'dumbing down' just look at the Slitheen. I've not seen any evidence that Moffat has dumbed down in the slightest. Quite the opposite actually.”
Yes, I'm struggling to see where it has 'dumbed down', too. Seems considerably less dumb at the moment. But then, I also have no difficulty deciphering a not particularly strong Scottish accent, which is presumanly in some way adding to the 'dumb' quota...
Have to agree with TP, but I'd imagine that was probably written before series 5.
And no, Alzheimer's is not funny.
And no, Alzheimer's is not funny.
Originally Posted by Doctor Octopus:
“It's not 'noir'ish', I'm afraid; it's sick and entirely wrong. If Pratchett chooses to use such a tone in considering his illness, then that's fine. It's HIS illness. What you have done is mock the fact he is going to die of Alzheimer's disease. What would you say to someone with AIDS? Cancer?
Pratchett's 'gallows' humour is his choice. He doesn't need you to stick the boot in simply because he chooses to use humour to come to terms with his illness.
Just sick.”
“It's not 'noir'ish', I'm afraid; it's sick and entirely wrong. If Pratchett chooses to use such a tone in considering his illness, then that's fine. It's HIS illness. What you have done is mock the fact he is going to die of Alzheimer's disease. What would you say to someone with AIDS? Cancer?
Pratchett's 'gallows' humour is his choice. He doesn't need you to stick the boot in simply because he chooses to use humour to come to terms with his illness.
Just sick.”
I agree....
Originally Posted by Tassium:
“I think he is refering to narrative technique rather than "science".
It's a funny thing but if you let people know how the story will be resolved, prior to it actually be resolved, then people just accept the resolution.
For example in "Blink" we were told over and over that the angels will freeze if looked at, and that's why they don't even look at themselves.
So when the resolution came (angels standing around the Tardis and the Tardis vanishing leaving the angels looking at each other and therfore frozen) people just accepted it without a murmur.
RTD had trouble with this technique though. Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.”
“I think he is refering to narrative technique rather than "science".
It's a funny thing but if you let people know how the story will be resolved, prior to it actually be resolved, then people just accept the resolution.
For example in "Blink" we were told over and over that the angels will freeze if looked at, and that's why they don't even look at themselves.
So when the resolution came (angels standing around the Tardis and the Tardis vanishing leaving the angels looking at each other and therfore frozen) people just accepted it without a murmur.
RTD had trouble with this technique though. Actually it's more than a technique it's an absolute necessity in fiction work. Basic stuff in fact.”
Was going to say something but I leave it to Solamenn:
Originally Posted by Solamenn:
“No it's not. It's just a technique, a narrative device among others. It's called a Chekov's gun. And like any other narrative technique, it can be used or not, it can be overused or underplayed. Just for the record : there are no absolute necessity in fiction work. Not even the narrative schematic (the five key moments in a story) isn't a necessity as proven by the "in medias res" beginnings.
If there were any necessity, French wouldn't have been able to invent Nouveau Roman in the 50's.
So you'd better check what you consider basic stuff before stating them as some kind of truth.”
“No it's not. It's just a technique, a narrative device among others. It's called a Chekov's gun. And like any other narrative technique, it can be used or not, it can be overused or underplayed. Just for the record : there are no absolute necessity in fiction work. Not even the narrative schematic (the five key moments in a story) isn't a necessity as proven by the "in medias res" beginnings.
If there were any necessity, French wouldn't have been able to invent Nouveau Roman in the 50's.
So you'd better check what you consider basic stuff before stating them as some kind of truth.”
Excellently put
Originally Posted by StarryNight:
“I think his comments are fair really, I dont really agree about the god comparison though.”
“I think his comments are fair really, I dont really agree about the god comparison though.”
I don't agree with the God comparisons either....mainly because it has always been challenged, and the actual theme has been how we, the ordinary people make something/someone supposedly better than us as God Like....whne in fact the thruth is quite the opposite...because when the Doctor really did start thinking he was God, it came to bite him the backside big time.
I will even argue that the so called science in the new series is as weak. Even though the phone virus thing came about ten minutes or so before the whole world went zero....we had only been told about the photos much earlier on, not any virus that could turn the clocks to zero. In the Beast Below, it was by pure luck that Amy decided to press the abdicate button....based on not logic, but emotions about what a Star whale would be like, in Victory of the Daleks....the only thing that had a solution was the bomb....and we know how that was solved
, and now the Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone.... yes the whole gravity thing was talked about earlier, but the crack didn't come untill Part two, and it was just by perfect chance that once the gravity had drained, the Angels were sent packing into it....lucky that the crack was on that side! What was discussed though was how the Crack could be closed...with the Doctor suggesting someone like him being thrown...so that could give a clue that Angels to could be thrown....but again it wasn't something that was introduced in part one of the story. So I would say that if TP is still watching, he will probably still be thinking the same. And probably still enjoying it.
Originally Posted by Kapellmeister:
“If you want 'dumbing down' just look at the Slitheen. I've not seen any evidence that Moffat has dumbed down in the slightest. Quite the opposite actually.”
“If you want 'dumbing down' just look at the Slitheen. I've not seen any evidence that Moffat has dumbed down in the slightest. Quite the opposite actually.”
Whilst i don't agree with the poster you quoted....its really strange that you keep saying that you can't see any evidence of Moff doing such things...when only a couple of days ago you doubted his status as a producer due to the daily mail article....
And Slitheen are not dumbed down, like I said on another thread, they are quite a dark concept, and even their farting is given a reason, they not just farting....some may claim that the Doctor throwing food all over the place is dumbed down, some may claim that having a future queen talking street is dumbed down, some may claim that the new Daleks are dumbed down, some may claim that the last scene in Flesh and Stone is evidnce of that as well (remember that one)...
We can all claim...doesn't make it true one way or the other, its all opinions
2 of 8
