Question From The Doctor Who Ignorant

[johnmiic]

John, nothing you say...No amount of proof will convince Rob he's wrong. It's wasted effort...He's too lost in his delusion.

Dana

You should read my reply in the other thread where I liken DW to a Micronauts toy. Talk about fried breaker circuts!

[ABMAC]

>Definitions. Science Fiction is defined as an extrapolation of science, fantasy throws away all the rules and limitations, so that even truly impossible (instead of unlikely) things can happen.

See; THIS is the terminal disconnect. Fantasy DOES have rules and parameters. In almost every fantasy setting there ARE rules to magic, monsters and such. Just like how sci-fi has to set it's limits and definitions early on; so too does fantasy. Sci-fi doesn't just whip a cyberarm on you, it explains abit of how they work, how they're made, how people react to them... that way you know what to expect in the story and you have a frame of refrence from which to interpret events in the story. Fantasy does that too; regardless if magic comes from the great spirits, application of mystic formulas, or the descendants of the great witch-kings, it has an oriigin. And limits, and a place in society. Maybe it takes more imagination to accept them, or more daring.... but they're there. And they're no less real than cybernetic arms with built in lasers, or spaceships, or time travel. They may have more POTENTIAL to be real, bgut from where we're at they're still pretend.

Don C.

He means the rules and limitations of SCIENCE, Don, not arbitrary rules and limitations set by the author. Internal consistency is a necessity in all fiction; it's irrelevant to this argument.

Science fiction extrapolates future technology based on the scientific knowledge of the present. Although there are certain fantasy elements like time travel, ESP, inter-dimensional travel, alien lifeforms, and faster-than-light travel that are generally believed to be theoretically possible, and are therefore accepted in popular science fiction, any fiction that disregards the laws of nature is fantasy.

Magic and the supernatural, by definition, belong wholly in the realm of fantasy because we know they're impossible.

It certainly isn't a question of fantasy requiring more imagination or daring to be accepted (I'm offended by that assertion, frankly), rather it depends on whether the fiction can be accepted as scientifically plausible. Accepting a story's fantasy elements in context is no big deal, even when these fantasy elements are within a story (like Star Wars) that purports to be science fiction, but their presence turns the entire work into fantasy; All the scientific gadgetry in the universe won't help you if you whip out a magic fairy in your story without making its powers scientifically plausible.

Rob contends that the new Doctor Who stories include fantasy elements that preclude their being classified as pure science fiction. He can't accept them as canon because he feels that the fantasy elements taint them. Having been traumatized by Sabrina's arrival at Riverdale, I can fully understand how he feels, although I'm baffled by his unwillingness to let others enjoy the show. There's a tendancy for fans to develop a proprietary attitude toward the works they admire, and I suspect this is true in Rob's case, perhaps to an unhealthy degree.

[johnmiic]

OMG!!!! We have dragged ABMAC into the fray now!!!!

Lord Odin, have mercy on our mortal souls!

[ABMAC]

I've never watched a single episode of Doctor Who so I'm completely unfamiliar with its canon. I'm sure there are inconsistencies from series to series but that's the nature of the medium. You either live with them or you disassociate yourself from the franchise at that point.

There are major inconsistencies in each of the four Planet of the Apes sequels released in the '70s. They can't be explained away, so fans who notice them just have to accept them. There are some who reject the sequels and prefer to view the original as it was intended to be; a single film independent from all others. When Tim Burton "reimagined" the remake in 2001, he completely ignored the previous movies and made a film that was Planet of the Apes in name only. I hate it, but there are some people who enjoy it. Some even try to shoehorn it into the same continuity as the original movies. I can't change their minds, so I don't try to. To each his own. Acknowledge and move on, dude.

[Evel KMego]

I like Dr. Seuss better any way!

[ctc]

>Science fiction extrapolates future technology based on the scientific knowledge of the present.

That's where my problem is: sure you extrapolate from currently accepted notions; BUT because you're extrapolating them, you're taking them into the realm of the unreal. They may LOOK more plausible, but because we can never be sure where the next discovery is gonna take us we can never be sure of how "real" a sci-fi idea is. Time travel may be right around the corner, cybernetics as good as a human limb may be impossible.

To me, really dwelling on the distinction seems odd; since it's so secondary to wether or not a story is entertaining, engaging, or well done.

>All the scientific gadgetry in the universe won't help you if you whip out a magic fairy in your story without making its powers scientifically plausible.

But.... what counts as "plausible?" Magic fairy that can place an enchantment on you; fantasy. Extradimensional being with psionics; sci-fi. Difference; somantic. (Well, that; and how you present it. But that's a story point more than anything else. Neither explanation is more valid than the other I figger.)

>Rob contends that the new Doctor Who stories include fantasy elements that preclude their being classified as pure science fiction. He can't accept them as canon because he feels that the fantasy elements taint them.

Which I don't disagree with; but what I have trouble wrapping my brain around is how this is any different from the original show.

>Having been traumatized by Sabrina's arrival at Riverdale, I can fully understand how he feels,

HAW!

>although I'm baffled by his unwillingness to let others enjoy the show.

There's the thing. I'm curious about this too, which is why I keep pressing the point. If you've already ascertained that you're dealing with a tribe of nonacs who just don't get it; why keep beating your head against the wall?

>Am I therefore to understand it that you consider it fine for two contradictory versions to be considered a single canon then?

Okay; here it is: we DON'T consider them different. Most of us here don't see it. THIS is what I'm trying to get you to rationalize through. You see them as different; we don't. You can SAY it all you want, call it a fact, call us blasphemers; but wouldn't your cause be better served by presenting it to us in terms we understand? And to do that you're gonna hafta speak the same language as it were. Please, please, PLEASE; for the sake of argument, TRY to come up with a reason for our perspective. No matter how wrong or distasteful it seems to you.

Don C.

[danadoll]

Dana, show me some proof then, how can you square the contradictions?Your word is not enough.

I have to ask...What is the point, Rob? You haven't read a single thing I've posted. Once you state what these Earth-shatteringly massive contradictions are, then maybe I'll address them...So far, all you've posted are the anal-retentive, detail-obsessive ravings of a "devotee" (your word, not mine) of Who.

I'll post some Proof that it's a continuation, though...And you don't have to take my word for it...

Rose (The Doctor has fought the Nestene and the Autons before, has just regenerated, is a Time Lord and travels in a TARDIS)

Dalek (The Doctor has fought the Daleks before, the lone Dalek knows him as an old enemy) Is it so hard for you to image the Daleks (who had aquired time travel tech long ago) wanting to be rid of the Time Lords, that they'd go to war with them?

Bad Wolf (More Dalek survivors of the Timw War...ditto)

The Parting of The Ways (Ditto)

School Reunion (Sarah Jane Smith and K-9, former travelling companions...Help the Doctor, Rose and Mickey)

Rise of The Cybermen (The Doctor mentions fighting the Cybermen before, but not the ones from the alternate Earth that he, Rose and Mickey land on)

The Age of Steel (Ditto)

The Army of Ghosts (Ditto)

Doomsday (Ditto)

Smith and Jones (The Doctor goes by his old alias, John Smith)

Gridlock (The Macra make an appearance, the Doctor mentions having met them before)

Daleks in Manhattan (The Daleks debate with the Doctor why they always lose to him)

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

[Mikey]

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

Really ?

I seen that epsiode on youtube last week and I totally missed that.
Any still's of the sketches around ?
Were they sketches of former Doctors ?--- Like a sketch of Tom Baker etc ?

[johnmiic]

You take the episode The Shakespeare Code. It's a story about Witches who plot to bring their race accross dimensions to conquer Earth. It is explained that the use of incantation specifically worded can manipulate matter and energy. That's science under the guise of Magick.

Rewind- Logopolis.

The Logopolitans can use mathematics, have been using it, to stave off entropy which would destroy the universe. Math, configured properly can manipulate matter and energy. Science which seems to operate as magick. Why? Because it is beyond our understanding how to do it.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." ... Arthur C. Clarke

[ABMAC]

…there are certain fantasy elements like time travel, ESP, inter-dimensional travel, alien lifeforms, and faster-than-light travel that are generally believed to be theoretically possible, and are therefore accepted in popular science fiction

>…Magic fairy that can place an enchantment on you; fantasy. Extradimensional being with psionics; sci-fi. Difference; somantic. (Well, that; and how you present it. But that's a story point more than anything else. Neither explanation is more valid than the other I figger.)

It's more than just semantics; ironically, it's also a matter of faith. Science fiction asks you to accept on faith that seemingly fantastic elements will be explained scientifically if they're ever encountered, while Fantasy presents a context in which you're expected to unquestioningly believe the impossible. You say that neither explanation is more valid, but that's the point; fantasy doesn't offer explanations, so it's only valid within its own context.

When a magic fairy appears in a fantasy story, you're not expected to assume that it will eventually be explained as an alien being with psionic powers, you're supposed to accept that it's a magic fairy.

[Mikey]

Very interesting you guys are using magic fairy's as your example...
An episode of TORCHWOOD ... TV-show related to Doctor Who, did a whole episode about fairy's and what they REALLY are
Yes, they are REAL and explained scientifically

Fairy's are real ?

Oh yes,

Creatures from the dawn of time with great power

[Surfsup]

Human Nature (the Doctor is "John Smith" again and has sketches of his past selves in his notebook)

Really ?

I seen that epsiode on youtube last week and I totally missed that.
Any still's of the sketches around ?
Were they sketches of former Doctors ?--- Like a sketch of Tom Baker etc ?

From what I remember, there were sketches of Tom Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann and Peter Davison. That was a classy touch!

[Mikey]

Very neat,
I just captured it from youtube.......



m
__________________________________________

Sly looks a little bit like Ringo

BTW, who's the guy on the upper right ?
Tom or Jon ?

and the guy (top of head) on the lower left ?
Pat ?

I can tell Davison's hair on the lower right

m

[drwhofan74]

Just to chime in on the whole Magic vs. Technology thing... Different incarnations of the Doctor dealt with these in slightly different ways. For example, in the 8th Doctor's novels, he is much more into the spiritual and the occult. He is thus willing to accept certain things as beyond common understanding. (I am specifically thinking of The City of the Dead by Lloyd Rose. It takes place in New Orleans and involves voodoo and sex magic. It is actually rather graphic in parts...) All of this is also partially a result of the holes in his memory due to the violence and quickness of his last regeneration.

But, the point is that there is a precedent in Doctor Who for both "magical" and "scientific" explanations.

[palitoy]

In the original script for "Love and Monsters" Elton's mother was killed by an Auton flower, it was rewritten because RTD wanted to include the tenth Doctor in the flashback.

Another scene of Elton witnessing the Loch Ness Monster from "Terror of the Zygons" as a child, were cut ,apparently for time.