• Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    4 months ago

    Farscape is a very soft sci-fi, but it has a mostly consistent world that mostly follows its internal logic. It has muppet aliens and the supernatural along side more traditional TV space tropes, but the narrative makes sense as presented, and it doesn’t do much to hurt your suspension of disbelief.

    Doctor Who is the opposite of consistent. It makes shit up as it goes along and isn’t even consistent in the kind of bullshit it’s throwing at you. It can be tropey nonsense, comedy overriding reality, fairy tale reasoning that breaks down when you try to think about it to much, or whatever other idiocy it feels like being today. Instead of building a world that you can understand, it basically just says “don’t worry about it, assume we already did the boring set up stuff, and just run with the fact that plastic can be alive and chasing after people because that’s what we’re doing this week.”

    • Crackhappy@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well that be the best argument I have ever heard for why I should chuck out my preconceived notions and join my life partner in LOving Doctor Who.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is explains why the people I know who love Doctor Who liked Star Trek: Picard. If you can suspend your disbelief for Doctor Who, Picard had some crazy scenes that felt good in the moment but kind of locally breaks reality and seems kind of stupid in the broader context.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Battlestar Galactica might start as sci-fi but ends up as science fantasy. At some point a character comes back from the dead, becomes an angel, and much of the original mysticism becomes literal.

    • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Honestly I wouldn’t even call doctor who science fantasy. It’s just pure fantasy set around space travel and aliens. There’s absolutely nothing science about it, and they really don’t even try to make it seem that way. Anything that should have some sort of science explanation is just hand waved away, and thus internally inconsistent. The dr who universe is basically full of magic. Magic potions, magic wands, magic enemies, magic travel boxes, magic immortality, etc.

      I think the sonic screwdriver is about as close as they have ever come to trying to explain any of it, and they basically only did that to point out the (rather absurd, story-necessary) limitations of the thing. One still has no actual idea what it can do or how it can work, just what it usually does and what it can’t do (sometimes and/or probably).

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I agree actually, but the screwdriver is sciencey, and TARDIS does mention spacetime in a way lol.

        Imo, the only reason it gets listed as sci-fi is that there wasn’t anything else to call a time travel show back when it started getting popular. Iirc, it was originally intended to be a history exploration more than anything else.

  • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Yeah, Doctor Who is really far fetched and bizarre, but all the shows are fiction. Doctor Who doesn’t even try to explain the fictional part. It’s not a requirement, but makes some things difficult to accept.

    An extreme example of the opposite would be Star Trek, which offers at least one explanation for most fictional things like they can accelerate that fast because “inertial dampeners” or “the neutrino emissions of the tricorder scan affected it”.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I guess the question is “What Who have you watched?”

    For my money, peak Who will always be Tom Baker. Yes, it’s absurd, he knows it’s absurd and leans into it.

    • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Baker FTW. He understood the assignment: Gandalf-Bugs-Mr-Bean, saving the universe with absolute pacifism and a crumpled bag of jelly babies.

      The remake in the new format completely destroyed the character archetype, and turned him into a forced-whimsy action hero with a side of self-pity.

      • BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s a totally different take on Dr who compared to the ones from 2005, and the pacing is sooo slow, but sit back with some jelly babies and enjoy.

    • sgibson5150@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Make mine Pertwee. The Barry Letts era is the most consistently good the show ever was, or likely ever will be. There were some individual Tom Baker stories that were better under Hinchcliffe and Williams, and some that were much worse *coughs* JNT *coughs* . Perhaps one of the hazards of Tom Baker’s long tenure. 😆

  • bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    You’re not wrong. You just don’t have the absurdly strong nostalgia goggles that are required.

    (fwiw: I don’t get it either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

  • Hugin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    New Who tends to run on Bugs Bunny logic but also wants you to take it seriously. Try some old Doctor Who if you can handle very bad effects. Early Tom Baker or the Jon Pertwee stuff at least tries to make sense.

    Also they often have the doctor have to work at the problem and have a plausible solution. Now it’s just I pushed the radiation in my shoe.

    Back then the sonic screwdriver was just a high tech swiss army knife. The doctor would use it to open panels and rewire things. These days it’s a do anything magic wand.

  • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I grew up watching New Who. I never got into Classic Who. Part of it is just that you love the characters and eventually learn to accept that the universe is big and wacky shit happens. The Doctor usually has an idea of whats going on, and that’s all you really need. Imo the audience is like an auxiliary companion; we’re along for the ride and learning wtf is going on just like whoever’s with the Doctor. Our minds can’t always comprehend what’s going on, but thats okay. We’ll figure out a way through and sometimes even save the day ourselves. And at the end of it all we might be a little closer to the Doctor than a normal person, and we can use that to save the world when the Doctor is off saving another one.

    ETA: Also the Doctor is a wonderful character. I love everything except the Chibnall era because no one there understood the Doctor. I really really wish we had someone else as the first female doctor because I think it could’ve been great but instead we got someone who gave more ammunition to the sexists. The Doctor’s character has so much depth and mystery and demonstrates an ideal of humanity in the same way Star Trek does. I think one of the best examples of this is in the 50th anniversary special with the Doctor’s monologue at the end with the two boxes. I’m paraphrasing, but, “at the end of the day all wars end with what people should’ve done from the beginning: talk. If people just sat down and talked it out all could be resolved without a single drop of blood. The war you fight will only invite someone to fight another war against you.” I’m horribly butchering it but it’s a really beautiful speech. It’s not a perfect response to all injustice but nothing ever will be. Eventually we just have to stop and move forward if we ever want to see a brighter future.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYobBjA1kk

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think Jodie Whittaker could have been a good doctor but like Peter Davison she was a doctor with a bad show runner and bad writers.

      • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’m unsure personally, but a lot of the blame definitely falls at the feet of Chibnall. I hope that when i watch the newer stuff I’ll be more impressed.

    • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I dropped Dr. Who after Peter Capaldi was done. Partially because Moffet’s awful writing with Clara as the sidekick and partially because the BBC wouldn’t put newer episodes on US Netflix for years

      • The Stoned Hacker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I loved Capaldi. Hes my favorite Doctor. I missed the premier of the Chibnall era so I was just gonna wait until the entire season released so I could binge it, but then I heard the reviews and stopped watching for a few years. I need to return to it now though.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Same for me but with Dune/Star Trek vs Star Wars. I don’t get Star Wars and refuse to accept that lightsabers are a real weapon.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, the basic premise of a lightsaber is pretty simple. You have some incredibly powerful power source, a blade made out of super hot plasma, and a magnetic containment bottle in the shape of a sword.

      The reason they bounce off each other is the magnetic containment fields bashing into each other.

  • Usernameblankface@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    You like what you like, idk why you have to be wrong about it. If you want insight into yourself on why you like this and not that, then therapy is where to go.

  • _NetNomad@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    i think a lot of great points have been made in this thread, but it’s also worth saying- you can’t be wrong about what you do and don’t dig!

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Opinions on Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?

    Sounds like maybe what you don’t like is British humour.