I could sort of buy that level of dumb for the reasons you give if there weren't massively more levels of dumb that follow!
Mr Awe
8X07 "Kill The Moon" (Grading/Discussion)(SPOILERS!)
- Thread starter Green Lantern
- Start date
I could sort of buy that level of dumb for the reasons you give if there weren't massively more levels of dumb that follow!
Mr Awe
We're talking about a show that has already established the Earth was formed around a giant spider monster, the moon being similar is entirely in keeping with the series (always rather poor when it came to science despite the original educational brief. The show was after all originally script edited by a man who thought mercury was basically magic. Not to mention Terry Nation not knowing what a galaxy is) internal logic.
Quite a fun scary episode overall, my mother was jumping all over the place during it, mainly thanks to the excellent creepy sound design.
Quite a fun scary episode overall, my mother was jumping all over the place during it, mainly thanks to the excellent creepy sound design.
Previous bad examples are not an excuse to throw known scientific facts out the window. Shall we have a flat Earth episode now? There's no reason this or other bad examples couldn't have been re-written to iron out the most egregious errors. The main character is a mad scientist, for cripe's sake!
To paraphrase Ian Malcolm. "Ah, now eventually you do plan to have science in your science fiction show, right? Hello? Yes?"
The show needs a science consultant who can point out major gaffs at the conceptual stage and make suggestions for improving the show's accuracy.
To paraphrase Ian Malcolm. "Ah, now eventually you do plan to have science in your science fiction show, right? Hello? Yes?"
The show needs a science consultant who can point out major gaffs at the conceptual stage and make suggestions for improving the show's accuracy.
Scientific accuracy would gut Doctor Who of what makes it special. They just need better stories to distract us from not noticing the bad science.
I don't see why better science excludes good storytelling. You can explain away something with a reasonable explanation or with a completely unfeasible one. Both take the same about of time, but one leads to more brain worrying after the show than the other. There's no logical reason for enormous scientific errors that could have easily been slightly altered to be... smaller.
Nope. You can get away with one unbelievable thing per story. After that you start to lose your suspension of disbelief. This story had one unbelievable thing after another!!
Now, the basic premise of the story was great. They just had to work it out so the science was not so downright dumb. At least get more of it right. The writer clearly had no idea what he was writing about. He doesn't even know how mass works.
I guess I just don't have the same level of tolerance for blatant ignorance as you do.
Mr Awe
Every episode this season has had at least three --
1. The Doctor
2. The TARDIS
3. Clara's smokin' good looks
1. The Doctor
2. The TARDIS
3. Clara's smokin' good looks
Yea, the only thing I really had a problem with is the idea that blowing up the Moon would solve the dilemma (Since the Moon affects the Earth's Orbit/Gravity).
The Shuttle could be more advanced than Science we are familiar with, the nukes could be way more powerful than we are familiar with, I'v already explained why I'm OK with the 100 Million years.
We've had Blackholes in the Center of the TARDIS/being the Source of Gallifrey's power and Time Travel Ability and keeping Gallifrey safe... for years now. So, what's the big deal with the Mass, when we've accepted this for so long?
We have Time Travel growing a Second heart and giving the ability to Regenerate (But only 12 times) for quite a few years now.
The TARDIS being bigger on the inside than the outside
Do any of you actually believe the average child viewer (The viewer the show is primarily aimed at) cares about the science, or for that matter wants to be bored to death with a Science Lecture every episode?
The Shuttle could be more advanced than Science we are familiar with, the nukes could be way more powerful than we are familiar with, I'v already explained why I'm OK with the 100 Million years.
We've had Blackholes in the Center of the TARDIS/being the Source of Gallifrey's power and Time Travel Ability and keeping Gallifrey safe... for years now. So, what's the big deal with the Mass, when we've accepted this for so long?
We have Time Travel growing a Second heart and giving the ability to Regenerate (But only 12 times) for quite a few years now.
The TARDIS being bigger on the inside than the outside
Do any of you actually believe the average child viewer (The viewer the show is primarily aimed at) cares about the science, or for that matter wants to be bored to death with a Science Lecture every episode?
I think pointing out bad science in Doctor Who is like pointing out health issues with a Big Mac. Sure, a few changes here and there could make the Big Mac healthier, but McDonalds JUST DOESN'T CARE. It knows its core demographic doesn't care. It knows that making a Big Mac healthier is an utter waste of time and resources. Same thing here.
This is not Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke or Greg Bear we're talking about here. This is Steven Moffat. Doctor Who is not really science fiction, anyway, and aside from a season here and there over the course of 40 years, it rarely has been. It's usually fantasy pretending to be science fiction. Its storytelling has been slapdash, inconsistent, and incoherent for most of those 40 years, and to suddenly insist on sense and reasonableness now seems out-of-place. It is what it is, and almost always has been.
And look - I would prefer not only better science, but better storytelling, more consistent characterization, tighter and smarter plotting, and all sorts of improvements, big and small. But what we've got instead is very entertaining and inconsequential silliness with an occasional nod to pretending to be morally serious, and that's about it.
All of which to say - if you're looking for scientific plausibility in this show, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
This is not Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke or Greg Bear we're talking about here. This is Steven Moffat. Doctor Who is not really science fiction, anyway, and aside from a season here and there over the course of 40 years, it rarely has been. It's usually fantasy pretending to be science fiction. Its storytelling has been slapdash, inconsistent, and incoherent for most of those 40 years, and to suddenly insist on sense and reasonableness now seems out-of-place. It is what it is, and almost always has been.
And look - I would prefer not only better science, but better storytelling, more consistent characterization, tighter and smarter plotting, and all sorts of improvements, big and small. But what we've got instead is very entertaining and inconsequential silliness with an occasional nod to pretending to be morally serious, and that's about it.
All of which to say - if you're looking for scientific plausibility in this show, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
How many moons had we had by the year 5.5/apple/26?
My problem is that there's DW with decent science, there's DW with utterly barmy science, but that these are usually different stories, whereas Kill The Moon tried to have it both ways, making an effort with the gravity bit with the yoyo, and then going "well fuck that shit..."
So I don't mind whether the science is good or bad, I'm just happier when they pick one of those options and stick with it.
Also, anyone complaining about magically appearing and disappearing mass obviously has never lived with a cat.
So I don't mind whether the science is good or bad, I'm just happier when they pick one of those options and stick with it.
Also, anyone complaining about magically appearing and disappearing mass obviously has never lived with a cat.
Last edited:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dequ6OrKEaQ[/yt]
Space.
It's dull like grampa.
Space.
It's dull like grampa.
That's a huge part of the problem with our society today. Science is undervalued even though it's more important than ever.
Mr Awe
That depends on if the gestation period of the species is constant at 100 million years, or if the next few cycles the creature decides to leave Earth without dropping an egg.
But on average, I suppose 100 moons. Assuming the cycle started about 4.5 billion years ago, and the Earth and Moon end 5.5 billion years from now.
When one sits down to watch a show about an alien travelling through time in a phone booth with an interior larger than its exterior, one should know actual science isn't going to play a factor in it. Doctor Who isn't hard science, nor should it try to be.
You should, ignorance is bliss.
Okay, but seriously, Doctor Who isn't about science, it's an adventure show and that's what the audience tunes in for. An argument can be made that since the show is targeted towards a younger audience, it should also teach them something, but the audience isn't tuning into the show for a science lesson, they want to see a fun adventure. My problems with Kill the Moon is that it failed to entertain me. In fact, I didn't even notice most of the science errors.
Besides, no one gets bent out of shape over the historical inaccuracies in episodes set in the past, so why are scientific inaccuracies any worse?
50 years.
The scientific inaccuracies are just lazy storytelling. If they want to tell me a story involving the familiar, it has to follow the familiar rules. The TARDIS isn't familiar so it doesn't have to follow rules, it exists in the fantasy of the show completely outside of my personal experience. The moon does not. Tides do not. Mass and gravity do not. These are real parts of our everyday existence and to insist they work any other way than what is familiar removes the illusion of reality.
I'm not asking for hard science or even hard science fiction, just a little respect for the audience and some pretty basic rules of our shared reality. If a story wants to say the sun disappeared, fine. If that story wants to say the sun got sucked up into a black hole bomb created by the villain of the story, sure whatever. If the story wants to tell me that the only impact on earth is that it gets dark and a little colder, and the problem can be solved by igniting Jupiter with a bomb. . . well, now we have a problem. This is usually where the pure fantasy steps in, to provide a shield from reality by having the Doctor spout some nonsense technobabble as an excuse for why the nonsense things make sense in the context of the story. This story didn't even respect the audience enough to do that.
I'm not asking for hard science or even hard science fiction, just a little respect for the audience and some pretty basic rules of our shared reality. If a story wants to say the sun disappeared, fine. If that story wants to say the sun got sucked up into a black hole bomb created by the villain of the story, sure whatever. If the story wants to tell me that the only impact on earth is that it gets dark and a little colder, and the problem can be solved by igniting Jupiter with a bomb. . . well, now we have a problem. This is usually where the pure fantasy steps in, to provide a shield from reality by having the Doctor spout some nonsense technobabble as an excuse for why the nonsense things make sense in the context of the story. This story didn't even respect the audience enough to do that.
Covering inaccuracies with technobabble is the opposite of respecting your audience. It's a hollow, miserable trope devoid of wit or grace. I much prefer the "deal with it" attitude usually embodied by Doctor Who. Thinking that the moon creature is siphoning mass from a parallel universe makes you feel better? Then think that, but don't force the writers to insert ridiculous pseudoscience lines in what is, at its core, a morality play.
A morality play; possibly. But still one that requires absurd amounts of bad science to set up.
The nonsense-tech of the TARDIS (to use another poster's example) are NOT an integral part of this tale. Mass-increasing moon sized space dragon eggs which are born pregnant and require long-range nuclear weapon laden shuttles to deal the situation in an inadequately explained way ARE essential, which is the problem.
A morality play should not be hampered by such a large number of seemingly absurd and unanswered questions - it detracts from the drama.
The nonsense-tech of the TARDIS (to use another poster's example) are NOT an integral part of this tale. Mass-increasing moon sized space dragon eggs which are born pregnant and require long-range nuclear weapon laden shuttles to deal the situation in an inadequately explained way ARE essential, which is the problem.
A morality play should not be hampered by such a large number of seemingly absurd and unanswered questions - it detracts from the drama.
I think I'm more forgiving of bad science if the rest of the production is engaging, for me the problem was that the story was all over the place, the crappy science was just the stale icing on an already stale cake.
I like plenty of TV and films that are riven with plot holes but are so entertainingly done that I don't care.
I like plenty of TV and films that are riven with plot holes but are so entertainingly done that I don't care.
The mass wasn't increasing more than the density.
The baby is made from a much denser material than moonstone.
Which is sorta logical otherwise it would tear itself apart whenever it moved.
It has to be sturdy.
Besides the Doctor said that all the geological deposits where gone, which is what the baby ate and made it's body from at it's earliest stages. Living metal? Living metal that can grow if it is able to access other food sources like perhaps Helium 3.
Helium 3 converted into super dense metal through a biological process not so different from how we turn apples into bones and nails.
Breakfast of champions.
The baby is made from a much denser material than moonstone.
Which is sorta logical otherwise it would tear itself apart whenever it moved.
It has to be sturdy.
Besides the Doctor said that all the geological deposits where gone, which is what the baby ate and made it's body from at it's earliest stages. Living metal? Living metal that can grow if it is able to access other food sources like perhaps Helium 3.
Helium 3 converted into super dense metal through a biological process not so different from how we turn apples into bones and nails.
Breakfast of champions.
Similar threads
- Poll
