|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 31, 2017 20:54:35 GMT
No, the bible isn't static, it's simply saying that we did this and this and this, and let all who write on this be (a) aware of that and (b) build on it. You don't have to be 80s level continuity nerds, you don't even need to mention it, but if we referenced what had happened before it would either line up or extrapolate or enhance. It doesn't have to ignore because the writer wasn't arsed to check. We don't need to get to levels of "there's a hole in the ship and the space is getting in". I just feel a 'bible' would lead to writers feeling compelled to check it and potentially leading to less daring ideas. I actually really liked Kill the Moon's twist. The idea of the Moon as an egg is utterly, utterly bonkers and one only Who could pull off. The Doctor's utterly delighted expression upon realising it sells the idea better than any science could. Where I had problems was the creature laying a new egg (couldn't they have come up with a more creative way to replace the Moon?), but that's a minor issue in the grand scheme of the story. Yes science states it's utterly impossible, but it's a great concept nonetheless. In the Forest of the Night's problem for me was not its disregard of science, it's fairytale quality was one of its strengths, but rather its almost complete absence of plot. That's my overall point for this thread-if real science leads to a good concept for a story, then use it, but if real science is in the way of a good concert, then ditch it. As for the sonic screwdriver and alike, truth be told I'd rather their usage was dialled down a bit in favour of more creative solutions, and if those solutions use real science then that's great. Well, the complete absence of plot in "in the forest..." leads me to a little tangent. If you're going to commission writers with certain strengths, rather than them deciding what they write for you commission them properly. So I'd have given that story to Neil Gaiman and not "Nightmare in Silver", which was ar*e for all sorts of other reasons. You want urban fairytale like story? Gaiman. You want Cybermen? Someone else. You want Daleks? (No, not for a while actually) get Briggsy in to do one, seriously now. He hasn't written for TV Who but he knows his Daleks. |
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Mar 31, 2017 21:12:07 GMT
charlesuirdhein Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe your whole stance is based on the concept of "verisimilitude" in one's writing. Now, I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination (I always think of myself like Helen in The World According To Garp. When Garp asks if she's a writer, she answers, "No, I'm a reader.") but I did take an intensive playwriting/production summer workshop when I was younger and still thought I would find a career in the theater. One of the things that was stressed in that workshop was that it didn't matter what the play was about and how we developed the world our characters were in. What matters most is to be consistent within the world we were creating in order to make it believable to our audience. This is true even in Doctor Who. The writer may be writing nonsense (or sci fi, or fantasy), but as long as the nonsense fits into the world that has already been established there shouldn't be a problem. But allow the nonsense to become too nonsensical, you start to loose your audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 31, 2017 21:16:14 GMT
charlesuirdhein Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe your whole stance is based on the concept of "verisimilitude" in one's writing. Now, I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination (I always think of myself like Helen in The World According To Garp. When Garp asks if she's a writer, she answers, "No, I'm a reader.") but I did take an intensive playwriting/production summer workshop when I was younger and still thought I would find a career in the theater. One of the things that was stressed in that workshop was that it didn't matter what the play was about and how we developed the world our characters were in. What matters most is to be consistent within the world we were creating in order to make it believable to our audience. This is true even in Doctor Who. The writer may be writing nonsense (or sci fi, or fantasy), but as long as the nonsense fits into the world that has already been established there shouldn't be a problem. But allow the nonsense to become too nonsensical, you start to loose your audience. Ah, the essence of Tolkien. The secondary world must be entirely consistent to itself. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 31, 2017 23:10:42 GMT
I can overlook nonsense like "I'm polarizing the neutron flow", largely in part because I generally take it to mean "be quiet, I need to think." But when entire premises just don't work, it bothers me. "I'm polarizing the neutron flow" would indeed be nonsense. Everyone knows you can't do that; the neutron flow must already be polarized so you can 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow'. I know that must be possible because 'my' Doctor used to do it all the time...  |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 1, 2017 0:05:06 GMT
I can overlook nonsense like "I'm polarizing the neutron flow", largely in part because I generally take it to mean "be quiet, I need to think." But when entire premises just don't work, it bothers me. "I'm polarizing the neutron flow" would indeed be nonsense. Everyone knows you can't do that; the neutron flow must already be polarized so you can 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow'. I know that must be possible because 'my' Doctor used to do it all the time... And there's that lovely scene in DOTD where 10 and 11 argue over which one of them is doing the reversing |
|
|
|
Post by glutamodo on Apr 1, 2017 0:08:34 GMT
I'm a pretty big fan of "hard" science fiction, so when we get into DW episodes with totally bizarre or horrible science it does bother me a bit. That darn Moon-Egg, and the Insta-Forest-To-Absorb-The-Solar-Flare... ugh, I do not expect to re-watch those, ever, despite how much I like Capaldi. One of my favorite sci-fi writers over the years has been Larry Niven who at one point explained that he couldn't bring himself to write time-travel stories because he considered them fantasy. But then he changed his mind and wrote a series of sci-fi time travel short stories but they were tongue-in-cheek humorous stories.
Anyway, while I agree that time travel itself is intrinsically science fantasy, I would prefer the show to keep it on the "science" side of things. Does that mean they need a "bible"? No, I don't think so, to do it right it would have to be a massive encyclopedia about the show and the canon is so huge, diverse and muddled I wouldn't want the job of coming up with it. But a general "writer's guide" that at least tries to push writers to keep their stories more scientific than fantasy, yeah that would be fine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:13:49 GMT
charlesuirdhein Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe your whole stance is based on the concept of "verisimilitude" in one's writing. Now, I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination (I always think of myself like Helen in The World According To Garp. When Garp asks if she's a writer, she answers, "No, I'm a reader.") but I did take an intensive playwriting/production summer workshop when I was younger and still thought I would find a career in the theater. One of the things that was stressed in that workshop was that it didn't matter what the play was about and how we developed the world our characters were in. What matters most is to be consistent within the world we were creating in order to make it believable to our audience. This is true even in Doctor Who. The writer may be writing nonsense (or sci fi, or fantasy), but as long as the nonsense fits into the world that has already been established there shouldn't be a problem. But allow the nonsense to become too nonsensical, you start to loose your audience. This is one of the hardest things to juggle in a science fiction/fantasy setting. Sci-fi has a bit more leeway with what can be considered "true" because it can range from something like Robotech to The Champions, but like all works, there must always be an established set of rules that the stories follow. Thunderbirds for example, a series about a secret organisation tasked with saving lives all over the world. Letting people take photographs of the Thunderbird machines and their pilots every which way, doesn't fit with the show's premise of total security. Emphasised by the fact that one of the pilots was hunted and attacked by the United States Air Force and Navy on two separate occasions trying to stop them from identifying Thunderbird 2's flight path to home base. It's always a question of evidence. Is this facet of the work a trend? What makes this anomaly different? Why does/doesn't this change work? It doesn't have to be real life, but your characters should be acting like the world they're living in is real to them. |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 1, 2017 2:05:48 GMT
charlesuirdhein Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe your whole stance is based on the concept of "verisimilitude" in one's writing. Now, I'm not a writer by any stretch of the imagination (I always think of myself like Helen in The World According To Garp. When Garp asks if she's a writer, she answers, "No, I'm a reader.") but I did take an intensive playwriting/production summer workshop when I was younger and still thought I would find a career in the theater. One of the things that was stressed in that workshop was that it didn't matter what the play was about and how we developed the world our characters were in. What matters most is to be consistent within the world we were creating in order to make it believable to our audience. This is true even in Doctor Who. The writer may be writing nonsense (or sci fi, or fantasy), but as long as the nonsense fits into the world that has already been established there shouldn't be a problem. But allow the nonsense to become too nonsensical, you start to loose your audience. This is one of the hardest things to juggle in a science fiction/fantasy setting. Sci-fi has a bit more leeway with what can be considered "true" because it can range from something like Robotech to The Champions, but like all works, there must always be an established set of rules that the stories follow. Thunderbirds for example, a series about a secret organisation tasked with saving lives all over the world. Letting people take photographs of the Thunderbird machines and their pilots every which way, doesn't fit with the show's premise of total security. Emphasised by the fact that one of the pilots was hunted and attacked by the United States Air Force and Navy on two separate occasions trying to stop them from identifying Thunderbird 2's flight path to home base. It's always a question of evidence. Is this facet of the work a trend? What makes this anomaly different? Why does/doesn't this change work? It doesn't have to be real life, but your characters should be acting like the world they're living in is real to them. Ah! The Pratchett Conundrum! Yes it's funny, but only because we're on the outside looking in, it's deadly serious for Vimes and Co. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 2:21:10 GMT
This is one of the hardest things to juggle in a science fiction/fantasy setting. Sci-fi has a bit more leeway with what can be considered "true" because it can range from something like Robotech to The Champions, but like all works, there must always be an established set of rules that the stories follow. Thunderbirds for example, a series about a secret organisation tasked with saving lives all over the world. Letting people take photographs of the Thunderbird machines and their pilots every which way, doesn't fit with the show's premise of total security. Emphasised by the fact that one of the pilots was hunted and attacked by the United States Air Force and Navy on two separate occasions trying to stop them from identifying Thunderbird 2's flight path to home base. It's always a question of evidence. Is this facet of the work a trend? What makes this anomaly different? Why does/doesn't this change work? It doesn't have to be real life, but your characters should be acting like the world they're living in is real to them. Ah! The Pratchett Conundrum! Yes it's funny, but only because we're on the outside looking in, it's deadly serious for Vimes and Co. Exactly. Death's occasional sabbaticals are absolutely hilarious to us, but for him, they're a very serious aspect of exploring his own ennui. |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 1, 2017 2:22:22 GMT
Well, I'm a fan of Father Ted, but I'd never want to meet a real version of Jack, whatever about the other two.
|
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Apr 1, 2017 4:33:24 GMT
I really don't care if the science makes any sense. As long as the Doctor explains what's going on in a sciencey sounding way, then I'm happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Apr 1, 2017 4:40:54 GMT
As long as I can grasp the concept and its consistent, or at least doesn't directly contradict, what has previously been established, then I don't mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by MayoTango131 on Apr 4, 2017 16:29:36 GMT
Doctor Who, like the books of Jules Verne, is science fantasy. Does static electricity with mirrors allow you to travel through time and in Skaro or antiradiation pills or the interior of the TARDIS? Even Lalla Ward once said that Bidmead ruined what made the series so special.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 4, 2017 21:35:30 GMT
I can overlook nonsense like "I'm polarizing the neutron flow", largely in part because I generally take it to mean "be quiet, I need to think." But when entire premises just don't work, it bothers me. "I'm polarizing the neutron flow" would indeed be nonsense. Everyone knows you can't do that; the neutron flow must already be polarized so you can 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow'. I know that must be possible because 'my' Doctor used to do it all the time... You're right about the quote, but reversing the polarity of a neutron flow also doesn't make any sense for various reasons. But again, it doesn't matter, because it's a throwaway line that means "hush, you". |
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 4, 2017 21:37:01 GMT
"I'm polarizing the neutron flow" would indeed be nonsense. Everyone knows you can't do that; the neutron flow must already be polarized so you can 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow'. I know that must be possible because 'my' Doctor used to do it all the time... And there's that lovely scene in DOTD where 10 and 11 argue over which one of them is doing the reversing "You're confusing the polarity!" Yeah...there are some really great quips in that one. "Compensating?" "What are you going to do, assemble a cabinet at them?" |
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Apr 4, 2017 21:44:52 GMT
Why isn't my home city covered in scaffolding after the events of "In the Forest of the Night"? Or anywhere else for that matter? imo, all the various earth and nutrients absorbed the roots would have caused instant shattering of just about every building in every city worldwide the second the forest sprung up, and then complete collapse into big gaping pits and rents when it vanished just as suddenly. (Nevermind that.....ermm....the idea about the forest generating only an "outer shell" of oxygen, from the ground? No. That's not how oxygen works. That forest would kill every human being and probably just about every air-breathing animal on the surface. Then, when the flare struck, the entire atmosphere would likely ignite as the superabundant amount of oxygen was consumed. Oxygen is Oxygen. The magical forest oxygen wouldn't just float up to the very outer reach of the atmosphere and stay there, leaving the non-magical oxygen where it is. It would disperse into the atmosphere, but not, of course, before creating lethal levels of oxygen at ground level. Ok ok. It is true that levels would ordinarily have to build up to a lethal concentration, but I'm saying all this because the point was this forest was a special forest and produced oxygen super-quick, so as to form a burn-off-able shell. Further, everyone was running around in it for a day or so, it seemed. Another point: if they really did produce so much oxygen, the trees may not have caught fire when blasted with a flame-thrower, but the air just might). That episode would wreck just about all human buildings, gas animals, then leave the planet with a newly unbreathable atmosphere. Thanks, magical glowing supersonic space flies! Thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 4, 2017 22:21:55 GMT
"I'm polarizing the neutron flow" would indeed be nonsense. Everyone knows you can't do that; the neutron flow must already be polarized so you can 'reverse the polarity of the neutron flow'. I know that must be possible because 'my' Doctor used to do it all the time... You're right about the quote, but reversing the polarity of a neutron flow also doesn't make any sense for various reasons. But again, it doesn't matter, because it's a throwaway line that means "hush, you". I know, it's nonsense whichever way it's put and I was simply joking. Jon Pertwee famously liked the line so he didn't have to remember yet more new techno-babble and (so say the commentaries) because it could be sung to the tune of 'The Sailors' Hornpipe' - which it can! |
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 4, 2017 22:26:02 GMT
Doctor Who, like the books of Jules Verne, is science fantasy. Does static electricity with mirrors allow you to travel through time and in Skaro or antiradiation pills or the interior of the TARDIS? Even Lalla Ward once said that Bidmead ruined what made the series so special. If people will pardon me but there is science fantasy and science BS, and science fantasy is internally consistent and logical once you accept the premise behind it, and that's why science fantasy works narratively. You can see the weird logic behind the mirrors and time travel, you know it's wrong but you can see it's a fantastic extrapolation of light travel...I mean most of the starlight we see is quite likely from stars long dead. Antiradiation pills are a staple of all sci fi so those don't bother me, and an examination of the nature of nested universes, or even the bulk hypothesis allows for the TARDIS to work. No offence to Lalla Ward but she preferred Douglas Adams and has made that known. That's fine but that doesn't make Bidmead's tenure any sort of failure. Adams was seriously over rated, good but not that good. |
|
