I would rather watch one bad episode of Dr Who than read a single word of that idiots books.
Terry Pratchett criticises Doctor Who, accuses it of makeitupasyougoalongeum
8 of 8
Originally Posted by andy1231:
“I would rather watch one bad episode of Dr Who than read a single word of that idiots books.”
“I would rather watch one bad episode of Dr Who than read a single word of that idiots books.”
Oh my. He's really quite clever I feel I should point out.
Originally Posted by andy1231:
“I would rather watch one bad episode of Dr Who than read a single word of that idiots books.”
“I would rather watch one bad episode of Dr Who than read a single word of that idiots books.”
What are you basing this assessment of his intelligence on?
He is intelligent I grant you that, but the interest I have in a flat planet on the back of animals is something I cannot muster and fail to see how that concept is in itself not ludicrous. I am probably missing out on something special, but I have tried so very hard...and failed.
Originally Posted by Dai13371:
“He is intelligent I grant you that, but the interest I have in a flat planet on the back of animals is something I cannot muster and fail to see how that concept is in itself not ludicrous.”
“He is intelligent I grant you that, but the interest I have in a flat planet on the back of animals is something I cannot muster and fail to see how that concept is in itself not ludicrous.”
Yeh thats kind of the point thought.
Originally Posted by neel:
“Yeh thats kind of the point thought.”
“Yeh thats kind of the point thought.
”
I thought it would be, but coming back to the good Doctor, surely us as viewers are aware that to think one element of Doctor Who is ludicrous yet to accept the concept of a blue Police box flying in time and space as perfectly normal is in itself a contentious point so ultimately not worth worrying about. I guess Pratchett comes to this conclusion anyway and just goes along for the ride, which he evidently enjoys.
Originally Posted by Dai13371:
“He is intelligent I grant you that, but the interest I have in a flat planet on the back of animals is something I cannot muster and fail to see how that concept is in itself not ludicrous. I am probably missing out on something special, but I have tried so very hard...and failed.”
“He is intelligent I grant you that, but the interest I have in a flat planet on the back of animals is something I cannot muster and fail to see how that concept is in itself not ludicrous. I am probably missing out on something special, but I have tried so very hard...and failed.”
The idea of the world being carried by a giant turtle or tortoise is, as Terry Pratchett has said, not an original idea of his own and does feature in some ancient mythologies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-Tortoise
Originally Posted by KennyT:
“TPs comment about the "axe in act one" set me thinking. We're all so used to that style of writing that it's now become a cliche and spotting "the axe" has become too easy, which spoils the denoument when it gets used in act three. I think a better example of how to do it is season two of "Breaking Bad", where the opening sequence of each episode showed the consequences of the "axe" but what the "axe" was, wasn't explained in the plot until the last episode - and it was beautifully done. (If you haven't watched S2 of Breaking Bad, none of that will make any sense!!!)
K”
“TPs comment about the "axe in act one" set me thinking. We're all so used to that style of writing that it's now become a cliche and spotting "the axe" has become too easy, which spoils the denoument when it gets used in act three. I think a better example of how to do it is season two of "Breaking Bad", where the opening sequence of each episode showed the consequences of the "axe" but what the "axe" was, wasn't explained in the plot until the last episode - and it was beautifully done. (If you haven't watched S2 of Breaking Bad, none of that will make any sense!!!)
K”
I've not seen breaking bad....but I agree the point your making. When TP's article was linked to on the New Doctor Who thread....and I read it, it made me think about how in real life, most things would end up being classed as DEMs. How many things just come out of the blue in real life, is realing interesting. to give a very small example, I happen to just miss a bus once, and while waiting for the next one, someone who knew me, and was passing by chance, picked me up and got me to my destination much earlier than I would have even if I had caught the bus I just missed. And yet if something like this happens in stories, it is a cop out...very interesting
Originally Posted by Dorabella14:
“Totally agree with Pterry's remarks (you can tell from that that I'm a Pratchett fan, and of the same generation).
Dr Who is not science fiction - it has been science fantasy from the very first episode, which I remember.
”
“Totally agree with Pterry's remarks (you can tell from that that I'm a Pratchett fan, and of the same generation).
Dr Who is not science fiction - it has been science fantasy from the very first episode, which I remember.
”
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you
(and Mr. Pratchett) there.
Science Fiction is a genre concerned with what
might happen , not with what could
never happen . Alien with time/space machine
disguised as earthly item (police box?).
Very unlikely, but could happen.
Evil mutants in pepperpot shaped-war machines on
distant planet? Could happen.
Now, if the TARDIS was a magic Narnia-styled
cabinet, and the Doctor was a wizard, and the
Daleks were monsters who used black magic, it
would be fantasy, because these things could
never happen.
Originally Posted by Residents Fan:
“I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you
(and Mr. Pratchett) there.
Science Fiction is a genre concerned with what
might happen , not with what could
never happen . Alien with time/space machine
disguised as earthly item (police box?).
Very unlikely, but could happen.
Evil mutants in pepperpot shaped-war machines on
distant planet? Could happen.
Now, if the TARDIS was a magic Narnia-styled
cabinet, and the Doctor was a wizard, and the
Daleks were monsters who used black magic, it
would be fantasy, because these things could
never happen.”
“I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you
(and Mr. Pratchett) there.
Science Fiction is a genre concerned with what
might happen , not with what could
never happen . Alien with time/space machine
disguised as earthly item (police box?).
Very unlikely, but could happen.
Evil mutants in pepperpot shaped-war machines on
distant planet? Could happen.
Now, if the TARDIS was a magic Narnia-styled
cabinet, and the Doctor was a wizard, and the
Daleks were monsters who used black magic, it
would be fantasy, because these things could
never happen.”
There is a very thin line between both of those things....its just a matter of sci-fi tecno babble or magical words that separate the both...and the best example i give you is of the very writer that now people are saying has returned Doctor Who to its sci-fi roots...
In the Girl in the Fireplace, when the Doctor and Co come across the fireplace, this is the dialogue that we hear:
The Doctor: Must be a spatio-temporal hyperlink.
Mickey Smith: What's that?
The Doctor: No idea, I just made it up. Didn't want to say "Magic Door"
Says it all really
Originally Posted by crazzyaz7:
“There is a very thin line between both of those things....its just a matter of sci-fi tecno babble or magical words that separate the both...and the best example i give you is of the very writer that now people are saying has returned Doctor Who to its sci-fi roots...
In the Girl in the Fireplace, when the Doctor and Co come across the fireplace, this is the dialogue that we hear:
The Doctor: Must be a spatio-temporal hyperlink.
Mickey Smith: What's that?
The Doctor: No idea, I just made it up. Didn't want to say "Magic Door"
Says it all really”
“There is a very thin line between both of those things....its just a matter of sci-fi tecno babble or magical words that separate the both...and the best example i give you is of the very writer that now people are saying has returned Doctor Who to its sci-fi roots...
In the Girl in the Fireplace, when the Doctor and Co come across the fireplace, this is the dialogue that we hear:
The Doctor: Must be a spatio-temporal hyperlink.
Mickey Smith: What's that?
The Doctor: No idea, I just made it up. Didn't want to say "Magic Door"
Says it all really
”
Of course, there's also one very famous
science fiction writer, (and DW fan) who
said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic..
I suppose this is just a fan thing-people tuning in
for an exciting adventure on Saturday night don't
worry if the show is sci-fi (like DW) or fantasy
(like Merlin). But for me, Doctor Who always
felt as if it were in the tradition of H.G. Wells
and Isaac Asimov, not Lewis Carroll and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Originally Posted by Residents Fan:
“Of course, there's also one very famous
science fiction writer, (and DW fan) who
said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic..”
“Of course, there's also one very famous
science fiction writer, (and DW fan) who
said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic..”
Which is true. If you tried to explain television, aeroplanes and mobile phones to someone in the Middle Ages, he would probably only be able to see these as "magic".
Originally Posted by tardis_cub:
“Up until this year, I'd have a greed with him. Tennant was almost too close to God for comfort. A bit too brilliant, and that awful bit in The Last of the Time Lords.....(eugh, why can't the crack in the universe delete THAT from my memory!?)
This year though is different.
I'm liking the new run which is showing a vulnerable side to the Doctor that hasn't really been seen since the Peter Davison years.....
(I've spoilered those in case an overseas viewer wanders in...)”
“Up until this year, I'd have a greed with him. Tennant was almost too close to God for comfort. A bit too brilliant, and that awful bit in The Last of the Time Lords.....(eugh, why can't the crack in the universe delete THAT from my memory!?)
This year though is different.
Spoiler
I'm liking the new run which is showing a vulnerable side to the Doctor that hasn't really been seen since the Peter Davison years.....
(I've spoilered those in case an overseas viewer wanders in...)”
Much agreement! The Doctor is no longer all-seeing and all-knowing. Which is much better. The Time Lord as God aspects of recent series has been very tedious and in some ways offensive (though I'm not religious in any way).
Davison was much my favorite Doctor for a long time, though McCoy ranks highly on my list, but that's for his last season and the New Adventures, which don't obviously count. Ecclestone's Doctor is flawed, so is MAtt Smith's.
Refreshing!
8 of 8
