The dreaded science thing...

Doctor DooM

Spinning off from the "what I want in series 5 thread..."

What do you think of the level of science shown in Who?

I have been a sci fi fan for many years, and a who fan for longer still.

I don't expect the science to be hard, or even too well researched, but I have found (since season 2) that at several points I have had "Ah, come on!" moments. Two reasons mainly for this:

Bad, bad use of sci fi stereotypes (which the series seems to think it's the first to use- step forward insta clone Jenny, bless her cotton panties:)

Science which is so bad it actually jars me out of the story. Daleks in Manhatten step forward. Lightning transfers DNA? Hows that work, exactly?
There's a certain level at which my suspension of belief is destroyed. This was one. I don't think any TV show should do that.


I don't mind sketchy science as long as it helps the show, but when it's just blatantly wrong, and also when it resolves the episodes problem with technobabble, it frustrates me.

Stark

Needs to be better

Most of the time it's okay. I know that sci-fi shows require suspension of disbelief, but what I prefer about sci-fi vs fantasy is that in sci-fi, you define the science of your world and then stick to it, whereas in fantasy, anything goes. This is why I prefer good sci-fi, as a lot of cleverness goes into it.

I don't like when moments of blatant inconsistency are thrown in for the purposes of getting out of a plot bind. If anyone's ever seen "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars", there are some extremely blatant examples of this. One that sticks in my mind is when they're trapped in a prison cell with gas being flooded in: "The gas is flammable, I can ignite it". "But won't we all perish in the explosion". "Not if I direct the explosion towards the door". Lazy writing anyone?

One of the best examples I can think of for suspension of disbelief vs keeping your science consistent is Superman. We're okay with believing that a man can fly, be invulnerable to all physical forces, shoot laser beams from his eyes etc., but in return for suspending our disbelief for this, we expect that his powers remain consistent. For example, he should always be vulnerable to Kryptonite and we shouldn't see him shoot laser beams from his hands etc. Similarly in Doctor Who, we can expect to see him travel through time and space in a police box, but not to send objects back in time by changing the voltage on a microwave and the like.

Edit: actually maybe Superman isn't such a good idea, when you consider that 50s Superman was so much weaker

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Stark wrote: »

Most of the time it's okay. I know that sci-fi shows require suspension of disbelief, but what I prefer about sci-fi vs fantasy is that in sci-fi, you define the science of your world and then stick to it, whereas in fantasy, anything goes. This is why I prefer good sci-fi, as a lot of cleverness goes into it.

I don't like when moments of blatant inconsistency are thrown in for the purposes of getting out of a plot bind. If anyone's ever seen "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars", there are some extremely blatant examples of this. One that sticks in my mind is when they're trapped in a prison cell with gas being flooded in: "The gas is flammable, I can ignite it". "But won't we all perish in the explosion". "Not if I direct the explosion towards the door". Lazy writing anyone?

One of the best examples I can think of for suspension of disbelief vs keeping your science consistent is Superman. We're okay with believing that a man can fly, be invulnerable to all physical forces, shoot laser beams from his eyes etc., but in return for suspending our disbelief for this, we expect that his powers remain consistent. For example, he should always be vulnerable to Kryptonite and we shouldn't see him shoot laser beams from his hands etc. Similarly in Doctor Who, we can expect to see him travel through time and space in a police box, but not to send objects back in time by changing the voltage on a microwave and the like.

Edit: actually maybe Superman isn't such a good idea, when you consider that 50s Superman was so much weaker

Doctor Who did this I feel- the lightning DNA.

pixelburp

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Ok, I have to admit that although I wouldn't be a supporter of deeply sciency science fiction, I agree that sometimes suspension of disbelief goes out the window with resolutions in Dr. Who. In fact, as a champion of science himself, many of the Doctor's resolutions would be more accurately described as "fantasy" or "magic". His babbling explanations are so obviously there to placate the notion of the "science bit". I know that children form a large demographic in the audience, but why should that automatically filter out the intelligence in a climax?

The perfect example of this problem were the two Sontaran episodes; both were chugging along quite nicely, with a lot of truly kick ass moments (UNIT v. Sontarans - glee!), but then we have a weak, one-button-fixes-all resolution. The Doctor literally causes the sky to explode & apparently this cured all the problems in the blink of an eye (rather than turning everyone on the planet into crispy human goujons). No science, no rational explanation or believability. Cut to the ending & they all go home for tea. BLARGH.

I hate to blame RTD, given how it was his vision that brought the show back, but I think the problem can be laid at his door. If I understand things correctly, he approaches writers with a "shopping list" of items that need to be included in their episodes, along with general points about tone and direction. This could conceivably result in the scriptwriters being led down a blind alley as it were, with the only viable option a handy one-button fix at the denouement of the episode.

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

pixelburp wrote: »

Ok, I have to admit that although I wouldn't be a supporter of deeply sciency science fiction, I agree that sometimes suspension of disbelief goes out the window with resolutions in Dr. Who. In fact, as a champion of science himself, many of the Doctor's resolutions would be more accurately described as "fantasy" or "magic". His babbling explanations are so obviously there to placate the notion of the "science bit". I know that children form a large demographic in the audience, but why should that automatically filter out the intelligence in a climax?

The perfect example of this problem were the two Sontaran episodes; both were chugging along quite nicely, with a lot of truly kick ass moments (UNIT v. Sontarans - glee!), but then we have a weak, one-button-fixes-all resolution. The Doctor literally causes the sky to explode & apparently this cured all the problems in the blink of an eye (rather than turning everyone on the planet into crispy human goujons). No science, no rational explanation or believability. Cut to the ending & they all go home for tea. BLARGH.

I hate to blame RTD, given how it was his vision that brought the show back, but I think the problem can be laid at his door. If I understand things correctly, he approaches writers with a "shopping list" of items that need to be included in their episodes, along with general points about tone and direction. This could conceivably result in the scriptwriters being led down a blind alley as it were, with the only viable option a handy one-button fix at the denouement of the episode.

I actually forgot that the entire world should have been set on fire there.

Mahatma coat

Doesn't affect me, tbh

No I dont think the world would have been set on fire there as the Inferno raged in the upper atmosphere, I would have expected most of the oxygen to be sucke up in a draft from the surface of the planet and most of the population asphsyxiatin

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No I dont think the world would have been set on fire there as the Inferno raged in the upper atmosphere, I would have expected most of the oxygen to be sucke up in a draft from the surface of the planet and most of the population asphsyxiatin

End result is the same, people shouldn't have been standing around going "Oh, isn't that pretty?"

On the contrary I thought the idea in blink was pretty good- kinda like the opposite of shroedingers cat. Of course it's nonsense but it didn't offend my suspension of disbelief so all is good.

Mahatma coat

Doesn't affect me, tbh

see, the above post is a strong argument for bringin back rolleyes

:rolleyes: just not the same is it

yeah blink was great, strange concept but it didnt hinder the story, however I'm watchin th e girl in the fireplace again, brilliant episode probably my favourite of all the new series, does the science stand up to scrutiny? fockno

Stark

Needs to be better

Mahatma coat wrote: »

:rolleyes: just not the same is it

Yeah it's awful having to respond to posts with words these days.

ixoy

Doesn't affect me, tbh

There's actually quite a decent book on all this - The Science of Doctor Who.
It's done by the editor of BBC's Focus magazine and seems pretty well grounded. The author's clearly a fan of the show and the show gets praised more for its ideas rather than having any grounding in science fact (he's basically forced to throw most of it out the window). 'Tis a pretty good read.

Mahatma coat

Doesn't affect me, tbh

just watched blink again, timeywimey stuff detector and the like aside I found the timetravel plot reasonably consistent

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see, the above post is a strong argument for bringin back rolleyes

:rolleyes: just not the same is it

yeah blink was great, strange concept but it didnt hinder the story, however I'm watchin th e girl in the fireplace again, brilliant episode probably my favourite of all the new series, does the science stand up to scrutiny? fockno

Agreed. Total bolloxania but never crosses the boundary into suspense destroying.

pixelburp

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see, the above post is a strong argument for bringin back rolleyes

:rolleyes: just not the same is it

yeah blink was great, strange concept but it didnt hinder the story, however I'm watchin th e girl in the fireplace again, brilliant episode probably my favourite of all the new series, does the science stand up to scrutiny? fockno

Yeah but time travel's still a completely vague and theoretical area of science anyway, so it's not like any scientist can pick holes with something we're still baffled about.

popebenny16

Atari Tardisar

To be fair Who isnt the worst of them all. How come lightsabres can and cant cut through metal?

The worst one of the lot was some crappy disaster mini series on Sky a few years ago which has Lance whatsisname from Alien in it about the sun about to go.... Nova. (think it was actualy called supernova) despite the fact that it cant because it just aint the right type of sun.

Never even montion the utter tosh that was The Core, or that thing about the lads going up to the bloody sun with Cillian Murphy.

And you had to go pay to see that rubbish, and more to the point, some idiot in Hollywoodland paid tens of millions for them to be made.

Puts Who's science in the shade, dont it?

Stark

Needs to be better

I liked "Sunshine" To be fair, it was more horror/drama than sci-fi and it was upfront about its "magic box that's going to save everyone" so it wasn't like we were cheated with a crappy resolution. The premise of the movie was the delivery of the box and the sacrifices the crew members would make to achiever that; we were asked to suspend our disbelief that the box would work. Now if at the end of the film, they produced a second magic box that brought the entire crew back to life, then I would have felt cheated and would be giving out about how "that makes no ****ing sense".

Which would relate back to SDoom's point. The problem with the Doctor saving the day by lighting the sky on fire isn't so much that the science doesn't make sense, but that rather being upfront and saying "this is how science works in our universe, it's what's needed to tell this story", they changed the rules at the last second in order to facilitate a lazy ending. It's like playing a children's game where one child reserves the right to change the rules if the game isn't going his way. It takes the fun out.

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Stark wrote: »

I liked "Sunshine" To be fair, it was more horror/drama than sci-fi and it was upfront about its "magic box that's going to save everyone" so it wasn't like we were cheated with a crappy resolution. The premise of the movie was the delivery of the box and the sacrifices the crew members would make to achiever that; we were asked to suspend our disbelief that the box would work. Now if at the end of the film, they produced a second magic box that brought the entire crew back to life, then I would have felt cheated and would be giving out about how "that makes no ****ing sense".

Which would relate back to SDoom's point. The problem with the Doctor saving the day by lighting the sky on fire isn't so much that the science doesn't make sense, but that rather being upfront and saying "this is how science works in our universe, it's what's needed to tell this story", they changed the rules at the last second in order to facilitate a lazy ending. It's like playing a children's game where one child reserves the right to change the rules if the game isn't going his way. It takes the fun out.

Bang on. How do you think "I wonder how they can get out of this one?" when basically, they change the rules when and where ever they want.

pixelburp

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Of course, now that the Moff will be in charge, all that silliness will stop

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

pixelburp wrote: »

Of course, now that the Moff will be in charge, all that silliness will stop

I heard he can walk on water, too

Lirange

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Some issues that they don't bother to explain really do leave holes. Even in some of the best episodes.

I think many agree that the Girl in the Fireplace was class but if time on the other side moved quicker then how were they able to observe Reinette through the mirror in real time? Shouldn't events have been moving in a blur of fast motion?

Doctor DooM

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Lirange wrote: »

Some issues that they don't bother to explain really do leave holes. Even in some of the best episodes.

I think many agree that the Girl in the Fireplace was class but if time on the other side moved quicker then how were they able to observe Reinette through the mirror in real time? Shouldn't events have been moving in a blur of fast motion?

I guess you could make some kind of Schroedinger style argument, that the act of observation synced the time lines. Or something.

In the defence of that particular episode (which was created by his moffianity, how dare you question him) the poor science wasn't used to resolve the episode- which is when bad science generally pisses me off.

Jack B. Badd

Doesn't affect me, tbh

I don't find that the "bad" science annoys me so much as the inconsistencies. As a physicist, I'd prefer to see a well written, consistent episode with little reference to science rather than one that relies on science that's blatantly inconsistent with either what has gone previously or what we know to be "true". Some of the lesser episodes seem to be like ST: Voyager episodes where 2 minutes from the end credits someone shouts that they've re-routed the warp engines which magically fixed everything. It's sloppy, sloppy writing and I mostly blame RTD.

Mal-Adjusted

Doesn't affect me, tbh

i remember reading somewhere that
"For a primitive society to encounter a technologically advanced civilization, their technology would relemble magic"

Put simply, Gallifrey was a high-tech. beacon of civilization, thousands of years ahead of us. you try to explain U.V. rays, computers and genomes to someone from the 18th century. it's hard.

Still, i do agree with the bollocks science involved. like in 402, how the hell can words be a science, i'm sorry, but that's where i said WTF. it's not like the original show where there was a carefully thought-out process in the science. (Toshiko from Torchwood is actually worse for the crap techno-babble)

ixoy

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

it's not like the original show where there was a carefully thought-out process in the science.

Umm no there wasn't. They barely tried, except for some of Davison's era. Otherwise they reversed the polarity of the neutron flow...

pixelburp

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

it's not like the original show where there was a carefully thought-out process in the science. (Toshiko from Torchwood is actually worse for the crap techno-babble)

Phew, it's a good job I wasn't casually enjoying a pleasant cordial, or I would have just geysered the stuff all over the screen. The original show had "carefully thought out process in the science"??

What Science?

Mal-Adjusted

Doesn't affect me, tbh

ixoy wrote: »

Umm no there wasn't. They barely tried, except for some of Davison's era. Otherwise they reversed the polarity of the neutron flow...

Of course, sorry:) i'm thinking of Troughton Era. i saw the Seeds of death recently and it was done very well in that. the same with the early Dalek stories.

ixoy

Doesn't affect me, tbh

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Of course, sorry:) i'm thinking of Troughton Era. i saw the Seeds of death recently and it was done very well in that. the same with the early Dalek stories.

Ah yeah - that's when they had a scientific advisor for the show who knew science. I wonder what happened to that? Certainly it's something RTD never bothered with - guess it's up to the individual writer now.