Computers and Doctor Who 93
Esther Schindler writes "We all know that the arts reflect the technology of their times. So let's look at The Doctor ('the definite article,' as Tom Baker said in December 1974) and his use of computers. Actually, for a show so closely associated with the Slashdot-techie lifestyle, Doctor Who didn't have much to do with computers early on. This article by Peter Salus traces the formative years: 'In January 1970, Jon Pertwee (Doctor #3) acquired a Cambridge scientist (Caroline John as Liz Shaw) as his companion, which might lead the unsuspecting viewer to think that a firmer computer science basis might ensue. But only in April did Liz exhibit her technical knowledge (by recognizing a Geiger counter reading).' And then we get to K-9....."
let me just put this here... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJeu3LCo-6A [youtube.com]
Obviously not canon, but these commercials are mentioned quite a lot.
oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
the computers are always there but to Doctors are like the oodles of controllers we have in cars, microwave ovens and elevators. too ubiquitous to even merit notice or much thought.
yes kiddies, for our controllers I'm using the old definition of digital computer was device having processor, memory, input, output
Re:Fantasy more than SF (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, no, not entirely. Sometimes you get occasional "high science fiction" type elements raising interesting questions about time-travel and its implications or the ethics of dealing with other forms of intelligence. But monster-of-the-week adventures, or battling the daleks again tends to be very fantastical and short on the interesting considerations.
Re:yet the only technology I ever noticed (Score:4, Interesting)
Hence, any appearance of a teletype was there because the Doctor liked it. The actual function of it was something different. It'd be like hooking up a monochrome VGA monitor to a Core i7 with command line jury-rigging in place.
Re:Fantasy more than SF (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this gets into the philosophical debate as to where fantasy begins and SF ends. In the end, I tend to think it's all pretty fuzzy, and that most SF in the movies and on TV tends to straddle the line. There are a few films that I would consider SF, even if the physics is dicey or even outrageous; Metropolis, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Alien franchise, Blade Runner are all what I'd view as science fiction. Star Trek, despite the technobabble, is still SF. Dr. Who sits in the same category as Star Trek; a lot of technobabble and mumbo jumbo, but still presented as essentially scientific and realistic.
The science fictionesque shows that I consider fail the test are the Star Wars saga and the X Files, that while they have the veneer of science fiction, are thematically fantastical/supernatural in nature. Any "sciency" aspects are very thin veneer over mystical and mythical themes. Sure Star Trek has its Vulcan mindmelds and other telepaths, but the show still tried to portray itself with some level of faux realism.