Doctor Who becomes an illogical, unscientific, silly soap opera in Kill The Moon Brid-Aine says: None of this episode made an ounce of sense. You don’t expect a lot of scientific grounding in Doctor Who, but you do expect the bare minimum and maybe some form of logic. Kill the Moon had no logic at all (at any time), and some parts in particular were utterly infuriating. Doctor Who on Kill The Moon The …
Its to much of a pain to torrent from Europe to watch a half a half arsed sci-fi series with no sci and not really believable fi anymore. People complained about Matt Smith compared to Tennant when he actually kept it together and was only bad when under an influence or to conceal somthing in the very short term. This incarnation is totally different and has been a confusing and insufferable ass since day 1. Ive had enough.
I'm British and I can't be bothered with it anymore. I watched most of the Tennant and Smith era and whilst there was some rubbish in there, it also had some gems. And it was nice to have a pacifist, intellectual hero in amongst all those solve with their fist types. And after all that, the new series has managed to pretty much kill my interest in about three episodes. Didn't watch this one, didn't watch the last one. A pretty repugnant character in badly plotted nonsensical episodes. Even Clara is barely holding together as a believable character because the actress is so good,
The tragedy is, Peter Capaldi is a really good actor and I like him a lot.
Well said Brid-Aine Parnell.
Dr Who has become the distillation of the BBC's proscriptive brand of humanism. It lays down humanist ideals so far outside the bounds of practicality if you have any belief they represent the way to be, we are left with no choice but to hate ourselves.
If two aliens are holding us hostage, one has his finger on a button about to wipe out 100 billion lives, the other has a knife to the throat of a fluffy bunny, the doctor will spend time and mental energy devising a plan to save the 100 billion lives AND the bunny. Contrast with but one moment or moral dilemma encountered by real leaders of substance in the real world. Look at the choices men like Churchill or Roosevelt had to face. When Britain and her allies were exhausted and thoroughly spent, having beaten back the Nazi threat and Churchill was confronted by a demand from Stalin that his soviet forces should take command of the over 20,000 Polish soldiers who had courageously fought at our side; Churchill knew the Soviets would take the opportunity to extend their dominance of Eastern European states and neutralise the force. He knew the Polish soldiers were likely to be led away and killed and he had a choice to make. Go against Soviet Russia, which would mean military action he knew we couldn't win and that would result in further death and destruction, or, leave/betray our allies and friends by leaving them to their fate at the hands of Stalins forces. In the event of course, he left them to the Soviets and they were massacred.
In Moffat's world such a moral dilemma doesn't exist. Churchill *failed* to find a Sonic screwdriver in his pocket to wave at the problem and make it go away. In Moffat's world, the Poles weren't killed, they were freeze dried in time and will be returned to their loved ones. But in Steven Moffat's world there further exists the big fat lie that if you can't find the sonic screwdriver/magic wand to dissolve the dilemma before your face (and here's where fantasy becomes pernicious) then you are a failure and you have no soul.
Of course I understand it is important to introduce children to higher ideals and attempt to instil the belief that good actions and perseverance will win the day. Fantasy plays an important role in the learning process. But Steven Moffat's idealism goes multiple steps too far and has become an insult to living and the real choices we face. By demonising any thinking on the basis of realpolitick, he is a part of a sentimental, over-indulgent insufferably idealist media-class helping to damage the capacity of many of the young - who feel intense social pressure to accept the philosophies like the BBC's proscriptive brand of humanism - to deal with practical life and the real world.
Yes on the one hand it's only a fantasy TV fiction. But on the other, IMO, I don't think it is too melodramatic to say, Moffat's Dr Who is the very essence of a special form of political correctness that is condemning the UK international irrelevance.
@h4rm0ny, I think I agree with you - Peter Capaldi deserves better (and Jenna Coleman now occasionally reveals that she is actually a good actor, despite being caged by such anodyne scripting) After a promising couple of episodes, this has descended into the depths that marred Matthew Smith's second series. I found it ironic that Capaldi at one point mentions being in Berlin once but "not killing Hitler", calling to mind the episode that marked the absolute nadir of the reborn show, as if to say "Hey, look I know this is bad, but remember 'Let's Kill Hitler' before you start calling this 'Worst. Who. Ever'."
It crystallised the thing that irks me most about Moffat's writing (and I attribute the "dramatic and shocking" coda to this episode to him, not the writer of the main story): major events are never hinted at beforehand: they just appear, as if to say "Hey! Bet you didn't expect that!". Well, no, I didn't expect that, and you springing it on me has disturbed the suspension of disbelief that's necessary to enjoy such nonsense as Dr Who has always been. It's supposed to be "surprise, and delight", not "surprise and annoy".
A good storyteller doesn't dump huge changes in the track of their narrative onto you with no prior warning, hint or suspicion: think back to any film with a major twist in it, and then go back and re-examine its start - there was always some tiny glance, or scene or some hint that not everything is as you expect - subconsciously, you were being tipped off that something was awry, so that when it happened, you were in some way expecting "something", but not knowing what. Moffat seems blind to this property of good drama, and thinks that ex-post-facto exposition is a substitute for believable character growth. Don't get me wrong. I like surprise, and I don't want everything telegraphed in advance: but I want the pleasure of mentally reviewing the preceding events and thinking "but of course!", rather than the annoyance of having to ask "hang on, this is happening now WHY?"
The second big problem is nicely summarised by SuccessCase above (although I think he's drawing a larger inference here than is supported by the rest of the broadcaster's drama output -- I certainly would make judgements about the culture of the United States based on watching episodes of "Star Trek".), but if I may just add a couple of words:
The repeated sidestepping of moral dilemmas or major catastrophes is a poor mixer for the hyperbolic story setups chosen by the current show-runner - and his own scripts are the worst offenders. Huge ideas are set up, played for about 30 minutes of screen time, and then when the inevitable dead-end arrives, the premise is torn up and balled up into an improbably pat ending. (e.g. a creature lays an egg that is phyiscally larger than itself... huh?)
In short, bah. Russel T. Davies may have been mawkish, cringing, and emotionally manipulative, but at least he had the balls to kill people the audience had grown to care about. (and the skill to make the audience care about them in the first place).
According to Whackypedia this wasn't written by Moffat but Peter Harness. Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to give a script where an important event like this happens (Doctor and Clara falling out) to someone who's never written a Doctor Who episode before.
Incidently why bother with torrents when there are programs like Get iPlayer Automator about?
There was clear change in Doctor Who quality, when Moffat took the helm. Before Moffat, there where many interesting supporting characters (whom many died, and they were sad deaths). But in Moffats time there has not been a single death which had a meaning. Yes, Moffat has killed Amy, Rory and Doctor god knows how many times, but always used Deus ex machine to bring them back.
I'm really sad Smith had to take role as Doctor same time as Moffat became showrunner, because quality of scripts collapsed. Much of the Flak Smith (which is not very much) is Moffats fault.
Example of Moffats genius: Pandorica opens would have been a perfect series end. Doctor would have been in box for few thousand years and gotten out somehow, and regenerated to new doctor, who is nearly insane because of what happened. Instead, what happened in The Big Bang? Total chickening and stupid cop out, which undoes everything which happened in previous episode. It's like Moffat realized he had written himself to corner, and just wanted really easy way out, so he pressed reset button, so he can write something more interesting. Series 5 and 6 have really woken then Moffat hate in me. I really hope he won't write a single Who episode ever, and is sacked from showrunner position.
And yes, Moffat wrote some good stuff in RTD time. But nothing good DW stuff since he also became a DW showrunner.
So one is playing Bad Guy and the other is in the process of making supper?
This is an ISIS-level atrocity! I demand you stand up to the human right of fluffy bunnies all over the world to not be processed into supper and to have their net-neutral interpet access provided to them so that they can express their leporidaic views on this matter.
"I nearly got it wrong." she said, NO, you did get it wrong! It was a no brainer. All the humans (on the important continents facing the moon) voted kill it*, and it was the right choice. And I was sighing a relief, will this new version of doctor Who come with a once in a while making the right choice in moral dilemmas. Making the right choice are in very limited supply in the TV and movie world, and it frustrates me deeply. "Stop dragging it out and make the call! It is not a choice because there is only one option!", I scream to my TV**. And then the characters demonstrate to my disbelief that there is a choice after all, and to my surprise (not really anymore) the story that unfolds afterwards is not a story to hammer into us that stupendously bad choice the character made had dire consequences and the moral is don't be stupid. No, it hammers into us that we when presented with these "dilemmas" we should make the "bold" (not bold at all, but rather cowardly) choice, put millions or billions*** at other lives at risk and it will all work out.
Back to my sigh of relief when the lights went out on Earth and I thought I finally would have at least once somebody make the right choice. Then she pushes abort. And there is no chaos and destruction, and there is no being yelled at by this new doctor that is a breath of fresh air of not caring. No, there are bunnies and unicorns, but the doctor gets yelled at a bit.
So, yes, SuccessCase, I do not get it either, but people seem to like this. And I would like to understand why. Does anybody here think it was the right choice she made? Care to explain?
*Well, they turned it off in massive grids, so it might have been a government decision.
**In my head at least.
***And in this instance actually against their will. Why did you ask them Clara? You sure are a rotten person, despicable.
@Success Case: I think I'm in love. Sublime writing. We need more realist humanists like you to hold the fort against the pessimism that this kind of fantasy breeds. Keep going, man, don't think everyone is drinking the kool-aid, there are still people (young people!) that have refused to rely on this crap to prop themselves up against misanthropy.
"Its to much of a pain to torrent from Europe"
I'm also in Europe and unless you're trying to torrent it straight after it's been broadcasted, then I'm not sure I understand why it's a pain. At the time of writing there are over 3000 seeds of various file sizes and even the download-limit-friendly 200MB one would probably take no more than 15-20 minutes to download. Hypothetically. If I was to try it. Whilst making some lunch.
You can even watch it on iPlayer with a proxy, Chrome plugin etc. but I prefer Chromecasting the local file.
It's my favourite episode of the series so far. Dodgy science, dodgy sets and effects. It could have been an episode from the original series.
On top of that we get some cracking dialogue and brilliant acting between Capaldi and Coleman, and the real Capaldi Doctor appears and he's a cracker forcing his companion to make the decisions.
It has redeemed the series for me.
I agree entirely.
There have been plenty of preposterously non-scientific episodes in past series of Who, but at least we had some real tension in this one and chances for Capaldi and Coleman to stretch their acting talents as well as deliver some lovely lines such as "I'll slap you so hard you'll Regenerate!"
Oh and as for those complaining about "Too many episodes set on Earth", I grew up with the Pertwee era...!
You're not supposed to scientifically analyse every aspect of it. That's the worst thing you can do with the majority of science fiction - as soon as you start that, you've ruined it for yourself and the others you try to be a smarty pants to.
It's not a documentary, it's a Saturday evening TV show aimed at the masses. Sit back, don't think too deep into it, and enjoy the adventure, peril, and dilemmas.
I don't think that the viewers are analysing every aspect of the series, it is Dr Who after all and not a scientific journal. What all Science Fiction asks us, the reader or viewer to do is to 'Suspend our Disbelief' temporarilly. Some do it with great writing, be it in print (HG Wells) or as a great script or by 'Razzle Dazzling' us with unbelievable special effects (Avatar).
What a lot of 'Legacy' science Fiction, like Dr Who and Star trek have is a Fan Base that is very wide ranging in AGE. There are Who and Trek fans in their sixties and seventies. Many of them were so inspired by these programmes they carved out careers for themselves in academia and the sciences and are very sophisticated thinkers. But, they still have the ability to suspend their disbelief just as long as their intelligence isn't insulted. All that the film and programme makers have to do for Sci-Fi fans of all ages is just, as a minimum, make sure that the story they are trying to tell is plausable...thats all, just plausable.
This post has been deleted by its author
You can even make it exceeding dodgy and damn near implausible science, but when you do the character actions must be completely believable. When both are implausible at the same time the whole thing falls apart exactly as this episode did.
The very first episode of Dr. Who I saw was Tom Baker's Robot. I was flipping PBS by the PBS channel on a Saturday afternoon (back when you did it with dially things instead of digital remotes) and it caught my eye. It was well into the episode and practically ended. I watched it to the end. It was incredibly campy with incredibly bad special effects but wonderfully acted. And I dutifully sought it out on the schedule so I could watch the next episode. PBS was blocking it so I could watch all the parts of a show at once.
There are limits though, and basing a storyline on things which are simply impossible no matter how you look at it ! Like the moon getting 6 times heavier without changing size - apart from where did all the extra mass come from to be that heavy it would need to be made from something as dense as solid plutonium. And why would something 'born' in space have wings and be seen flapping them to fly off - wings in space are totally useless.
The writing on Doctor Who seems to be increasingly based on 'we can do this, and it would look cool' without any application of critically thinking 'yes but WHY would that happen' :(
The problem was, it wasn't clever, it wasn't scary, it wasn't adventurous, and it wasn't fun.
Too many things we were asked to believe were too far off. Too close in the future, Mexicans, not Soviets or Indians, gaining weight, new egg from chick. Plus, the far too recognisable Clara-Doctor split. The break from character for Clara and the Doctor was too much.
It's a shame, Peter C brings a nice dark edge, but he was given a silly script (daft in places, completely mean in others) which was jarring. Clara is supposed to be clever but is so emotional I had difficulty tracking why she went off the deep end - it seemed a forced event to reach a particular conclusion.
It felt like someone had been given a formula and wrote a script without reference to any other episodes or character development.
At least the aliens were better than in the Caretaker episode!
I stopped reading the review when it was clear the author hadn't even tried to follow the basics. They didn't bring the nukes to kill the space dragon. They didn't even know it was a space dragon causing the mass; they just wanted to blow the moon out of orbit.
Basic energy-to-mass conversion can explain the mass increase.
It was a great episode. Who is sci-fi-light. Get over it. It always has been.
The Moon doesn't shine, it only reflects (very badly, too), but still:
Back-of-envelope calculation:
1.3 kW/m² dumped on the moon by the sun.
Make it 2001-monolith black, all surface utilized...
1737km radius gives you are disk of a bit less than 10^13 m² to shine on.
So you can collect 1.3 x 10^16 W, which is nice.
According to E = m*c², this corresponds to 0.14 kg/s in case of perfect backconversion.
So you are really looking at a few billion of years full-out collection.
Except that's irrelevant because by the episode it was a sudden shift not gradual. Indeed if it were gradual you wouldn't see the sorts of tidal waves that were supposedly happening on the surface of the Earth. Those things only happen with SUDDEN shifts.
When Doctor Who portrays either an alien race or travel to the far future, it often puts us into the situation where we (and the characters we are watching) are encountering scientific processes and principles that are completely out of our experience. Yes you can do a back of the envelope calculation on how much energy the Moon would require to increase it's mass (and therefore it's gravity), using E=MC². You can even use a calculator and get it more accurate. But you're still only using a 21st Century theory to explain an alien concept that may not even apply. Imagine a 19th Century physicist (Madame Vastra if you will, to keep it in the Whoniverse) watching a modern TV programme about an astronaut who had travelled from Earth to Alpha Centauri in 5 years but only aged 3. Within the realm of 19th Century scientific knowledge, they would consider it fictitious, unscientific twaddle. Yet with the hindsight of Special Relativity we find it perfectly acceptable.
Stone statues that don't move when you look at them, but can displace you in time and space simply by touching you? Where's the scientific rationale for that? Our best theories at present are that travel into the past would use unimaginable amounts of energy, plus some form of exotic matter, and is probably impossible anyway. So why are the Weeping Angels attempting to gain energy to "feast off of" by using a process that already uses phenomenal amounts of energy anyway? How do they get that energy if they're starving scavengers?
What about the TARDIS itself? The outside of the object is finite, while the inside is infinite. And it travels in Time. OK it gets the incredible energy to do that from an exploding/imploding star...which it is connected to...how? And what about Captain Jack and River Song, jumping back and forth in time using a small device strapped to their wrists? According to our 21st Century science, a Vortex Manipulator can't even exist, and yet I don't see fans pulling an episode to pieces every time Jack or River uses one. If technicians in the 51st Century can pack the power of a TARDIS into something small enough to sit on your arm, why does the Doctor even need a TARDIS? Hell, why haven't UNIT reverse-engineered the Vortex Manipulator they have to completely solve the entire 21st Century's energy problems?
We already accept so many outlandish concepts in Doctor Who that completely defy explanation by our present day scientific understanding (neither the TARDIS nor the Weeping Angels are remotely plausible in that respect), but the idea of the Moon being some form of egg that gains energy in a way that we can't explain is stupid?
Is it possibly because as a concept in a TV programme, things like Weeping Angels, TARDISes, Time Agents, etc are cool...and the moon hatching as an egg isn't?
I kind of remember hearing scuttling sounds from the spiders on the Moon's surface. Don't see anyone pointing out that sound can't travel in a vacuum. Plus why was Clara shouting at the Doctor to come back when her voice is being relayed by suit radio? It's not like the further away he gets, the more she has to speak up to be heard.
You see? You can pick holes in any of it if you're mean-spirited enough.
" this corresponds to 0.14 kg/s in case of perfect backconversion. So you are really looking at a few billion of years full-out collection."
Excellent math. But, not having seen the episode yet I had a question: Was this space egg thing specified as growing solely due to energy collection?
Leaping ahead to baseless speculation: There's a lot of useful mass on the moon to feed a hungry space egg if it's not a breatharian. Lunar soil has been demonstrated as a basis for growing terrestrial crops, albeit with lots of fertilizer and nutrients. More alien critters could get all sorts of material from the soil. Which is moot if it just likes its sunlight and "moon energy." :)
There's a lot of useful mass on the moon to feed a hungry space egg if it's not a breatharian. Lunar soil has been demonstrated as a basis for growing terrestrial crops, albeit with lots of fertilizer and nutrients. More alien critters could get all sorts of material from the soil.
But that doesn't lead to any increase in total mass - your just changing a mass of food (soil etc) into an equivalent mass of dragon chick. The total mass of the system wouldn't increase as the chick grew by consuming the soil.
(As to growing crops on the moon the extra plant mass would mostly come from the C02 in the atmosphere you would need to surround them with + the water you would need to provide them with. Relatively little would come from the soil. )
No, this one was worse than Treknology. Treknology at least makes an attempt at explaining what was happening. This one made none at all.
Oh, and according to the episode there are no minerals on the moon. None at all. It's just a shell. With antibodies that look EXACTLY like giant spiders.
And for the record, I am getting quite tired of the sonic screwdriver being the equivalent of Harry Potter's wand. All of the Doctors up to the new series used other gizmos besides the sonic. In fact, when the sonic was first introduced, it was exactly what it's name implied a fancy screwdriver that didn't care about the head type on the screw. We could do with a bit more of that in the current series.
"The Moon doesn't shine, it only reflects (very badly, too)"
You don't read enough science fiction. I once read a story about how the moon was a planetoid sized starship built for an intergalactic battle that had been abandoned aeons ago. Since then, it has been covered with enough space dust to look like a moon.
Since the Dr. Who reboot with Christopher Eccleston, I've been a Who fan, trying to watch the latest episodes as they air. But the latest Doctor...
I can't decide if it's crap scripts, or Capaldi's portrayal of the Doctor., but I feel this is the worst of the rebooted Doctors. Tonight's episode was yet another weird, unsatisfying story.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion. You may have a different opinion - and that's perfectly fine with me. The world would be dull if we all agreed all the time.
I can't decide if it's crap scripts, or Capaldi's portrayal of the Doctor
It's the scripts.
Peter Capaldi is a superb actor. The writers are trying to use his demeanour to create an edgier, more combative Doctor.
But what they've actually written is a grumpy, bitter old man. His actions are contrary to everything that has gone before. This isn't something that Capaldi can act around - this is the story line they're writing for him.
IMO, that's why it's not working - the writers have turned him into an old curmudgeon, rather than the (somewhat shabby) guardian of all timespace.
Vic.
I don't think it's Capaldi. I'm on the other side of the pond and am completely unfamiliar with the rest of his work, but just based on the little "Inside Dr. Who" snippets they insert in commercial slots I get the feeling he's a much better actor than the show is allowing. And you know, I haven't thought that since Sylvester McCoy had the role.
Laughably bad since day 1.
More laughingly good I would say, with the added advantage that the laughable can also be somewhat scary for the kids.
The thing is though that it doesn't insist you watch it nor enjoy it. It goes through phases one may like and dislike. You can't please everyone all the time. I would say it's better that it's on even when I stop watching than not on at all.
Those who enjoy it get 45 minutes of enjoyment and the rest can find something else to better entertain themselves. Of course some will spend that 45 minutes or more telling us how they didn't enjoy it and telling us why others shouldn't enjoy it and that's fair enough. Each to their own.
The less a TV programme wastes time being constrained by things like canon, continuity and scientific "accuracy", the more it allows itslelf to stimulate the imagination of it's viewers (though since most of Science is based on consensus and accepted theory rather than cast iron fact, perhaps we should says "scientific opinion" instead).
The original Star Trek series rarely bothered with accuracy or continuity and was entertaining because of it, while later shows in the franchise more and more fell back on technobabble to avoid running aground on the reefs of canon.
I watch the CBBC series "Wolfblood" with my daughter. Whenever a character transforms, the wolf is obviously unclothed, but there is no pile of clothing on the ground, and when they change back again...they are clothed once more. This is never explained or even addressed in the show, but it obviously doesn't matter to the viewers who just get on with watching an entertaining and enjoyable series.
Doctor Who often sacrifices consistency to tell a fun story, and only gets bogged down when it tries to retain consistency with science and it's past ("Temporal Grace" anyone? "Isomorphic Controls"?), and it's often at it's best when it simply doesn't bother about the accuracy.
I like Capaldi, I think he's bringing a much needed darker edge to the role after 2 much lighter ones.
But the bad writing and plots has not helped, and it's a testament to how good he's been that he's been able to shine through so much dirge.
I for one can live without Clara, I've never warmed to the character at all... it's like they are simply trying to paper over the flaws in her character in this season. Trying desperately to give her more depth and make her more interesting... It's not working.
As for the schoolchild... please... no more.
But there's one thing that annoys me more than anything this season... and that's the damn theme tune. It's simply dreadful, a symphony of noise that forces it's way into my ears screaming 'oooh, listen to me, aren't I completely different from the previous theme tunes, doesn't that make me special and great'... NO IT DOESN'T... The theme tune is like some one took some bad 80's synth pop and threw in a bit of orchestra to be clever... and even added a little bit of vibrato on some of the high notes... because that must make it cool right.
Then there's the visual opening sequence... which is really, really tacky... oooh look spiral clocks... because he's a time lord... geddit... nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more, say no more.
As for the trailer for the next episode... Titanic in space... sorry, Orient Express in space with space mummies... give me a friggin break. But no Clara... that might just make it work.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
