back to article 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 …

  1. bpfh Silver badge
    FAIL

    looks like no more Who for me...

    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.

    1. h4rm0ny

      Re: looks like no more Who for me...

      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.

    2. SuccessCase

      Re: looks like no more Who for me...

      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.

      1. Kristian Walsh Silver badge

        Re: looks like no more Who for me...

        @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).

        1. Carl W

          Agree

          Not only was the egg physically larger than the creature, it was laid immediately after the creature was born. Some of the Steven Moffat scripts were excellent, but they were all when Russell T Davies was the showrunner.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Agree

            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?

            1. Robin

              Re: Agree

              "Incidently why bother with torrents when there are programs like Get iPlayer Automator about?"

              In my case, it's because I also get things which are A) not on iPlayer or B) not even from the UK or C) not in English.

          2. stupid_register

            Re: Agree

            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.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >"a creature lays an egg that is phyiscally larger than itself... huh?"

          Is this the first Doctor Who you've ever seen? Because you're talking like somebody who's never even heard the words "bigger on the inside"...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: looks like no more Who for me...

        > 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

        So one is playing Bad Guy and the other is in the process of making supper?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: looks like no more Who for me...

          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.

      3. mr.K
        WTF?

        Re: looks like no more Who for me... @SuccessCase

        "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.

      4. Eagleon

        Re: looks like no more Who for me...

        @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.

    3. Robin

      Re: looks like no more Who for me...

      "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.

    4. BeeDee

      Re: looks like no more Who for me...

      Sci-fi without science, and with all the depth of a toddler's bedtime story. How disappointing. Does the writer of this cringe-worthy 'sci-fi' have no grasp of science at all? The end of Dr Who for me too, I think.

  2. Aqua Marina

    Was this article written in advance of the airing, or did the author watch the episode while furiously typing into their laptop?

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

      Since it was thre authors methinks it was a press screening and a timed article.

  3. Gordon 10 Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    However preposterous it was

    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.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Thumb Up

      @Gordon 10 - Re: However preposterous it was

      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...!

  4. Anonymous Bullard

    We know all that!

    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We know all that!

      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.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Francis Boyle Silver badge

        Exactly

        Giant Space Dragons. Is that a meme yet?

      3. Tom 13

        Re: thats all, just plausable.

        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.

    2. MartG

      Re: We know all that!

      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' :(

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "why would something 'born' in space have wings"?

        And why would something 'born' in space have wings and be seen flapping them to fly off - wings in space are totally useless.

        Maybe they aren't wings. Maybe they're solar sails, and it is beating them against the solar wind.

    3. P. Lee Silver badge

      Re: We know all that!

      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!

  5. Joey

    Daleks, Cybermen, lesbian Lizards. If you want science, look elsewhere. Loved it!

  6. Tom Chiverton 1

    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.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      > Basic energy-to-mass conversion can explain the mass increase.

      I don't think "basic" means what you think it means.

      You may want to explain where gigatons of pure energy come from without anyone noticing, so that they can be backconverted in the space hatchery.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Boffin

        @Destroy All Monsters

        > You may want to explain where gigatons of pure energy come from

        Erm, why does the Moon shine...?

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Holmes

          Re: @Destroy All Monsters

          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.

          1. Graham Marsden
            Boffin

            Re: @Destroy All Monsters

            > So you are really looking at a few billion of years full-out collection.

            Now try typing "How old is the Moon" into Google...

            1. Kunari

              Re: @Destroy All Monsters

              > Now try typing "How old is the Moon" into Google...

              However, the moon hasn't been gaining mass for the last few billion years as you suppose it would be by solar energy-to-mass production.

            2. Tom 13

              Re: Now try typing "How old is the Moon" into Google...

              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.

          2. lorisarvendu
            Stop

            Re: @Destroy All Monsters

            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.

          3. cray74

            Re: @Destroy All Monsters

            " 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." :)

            1. David L Webb

              Re: @Destroy All Monsters

              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. )

            2. Tom 13

              Re: growing solely due to energy collection?

              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.

          4. Fluffy Bunny
            Holmes

            Re: @Destroy All Monsters

            "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.

  7. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
    Unhappy

    What's happened?

    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.

    1. Vic

      Re: What's happened?

      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.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: What's happened?

      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.

  8. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Call Gerry Anderson!

    Moon Removals 'R Us!

    1. bpfh Silver badge

      Re: Call Gerry Anderson!

      But that was in 1999 ;)

  9. William Donelson
    Alert

    Wrong, Dr Who has ALWAYS been an illogical, unscientific, silly soap opera.

    Wrong, Dr Who has ALWAYS been an illogical, unscientific, silly soap opera.

    Laughably bad since day 1.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Wrong, Dr Who has ALWAYS been an illogical, unscientific, silly soap opera.

      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.

      1. lorisarvendu

        Re: Wrong, Dr Who has ALWAYS been an illogical, unscientific, silly soap opera.

        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.

  10. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Watch out for the pro-lifers

    I can see this getting twisted (à la Horton Hears a Who) into an abortion allegory, particularly by the leftpondians.

  11. I Like Heckling

    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.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      "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."

      Upvoted for that.

    2. Tom 13

      @I Like Heckling

      Disagree with you completely about Clara, but the rest of the post was so spot on I gave you an upvote anyway.

  12. bpfh Silver badge
    Headmaster

    The next one is a throwback to Big Bang II...

    Who was it? Cleopatra's ghost on the orient express in space that was mentionned on the phone at the end of that episode ?

  13. bpfh Silver badge
    WTF?

    kill the moon

    Not a bad story line, not a bad set, not bad horror creatures, though some gaping holes, including how do bacteria grow that big, how to they grow that big without any water, how does any living thing grow without water, and how the hell does a space chicken fly in space (I guess the same way a space whale swims), and how did it excrete a new moon? That must have hurt, how did the moon gain mass if nothing is created and nothing is lost and all is transformed according to Lavoisier, 1.3 billion tons is nothing ( the moon's mass is about 10 orders of magnitude bigger, we would probably not even notice the gravity difference on the moon, let alone on earth) and number one: why create a mining colony on the moon with no means of either bringing the crew back or even hauling back what was mined? It would have been a great cover story for somthing bigger but nothing came of it. A load of Mexicans went mining on the moon, never shipped anything back, never had the means of shipping anything back and was a one way trip by the look of things. No-one thought of this ? Its somthing that deserves revisiting but it'll probably get ignored.

    I can understand the storyline of wanting the doctor to allow humanity to make their own decisions, but since the start of the episode he is being an ass. Once he mentioned that he never met anyone who was not important, now he does not give a damn and does not give a damn about not giving a damn. This is part of the story plan as Clara walks out on him about it. He may come back in a few episode's time to make amends in another vaguely interesting Moffatian story arc that is becoming the norm.

    1. TechnicalBen Silver badge

      Re: kill the moon

      No one complains that an X-Wing can fly "really fast" because they kept the Sci-Fi in the fiction and story telling category. Fun and entertaining.

      But if they tried to say "The X-Wing is really fast, it flies 10mph and gets to the moon in 3 minutes" they can start to sound like a fool. The one place Lucas attempted to do that, with the Millennium Falcon, and he got his parsecs muddled up! That seems to be what happened with Dr Who here too.

      The difference is in putting the detail in building the characters and the backdrops and events. Not in completely fluffing either numbers, maths or logic. If they just said "the moons gravity is increasing, we don't know why" or similar, no one has to feel sick with the failure in maths that comes with "it gained 1.3 billions tons!!!"

      Worse, that's not how people talk in real life. We care less how much water flooded our house, it's that it did flood. Well, with the exception of news reports that insist on using figures to tart up their dialogue.

    2. Tom 13

      Re:Not a bad story line, not a bad set, not bad horror creatures

      I think the rest of your post pretty much contradicts that opening line. Well, except for maybe the horror creatures.

      ..since the start of the episode he is being an ass.

      That pretty much sums up what has been wrong since they regenerated the Doctor. I'm not blaming Capaldi. I think he's doing the best with the scripts he's been given. Somebody just needs to remind the writers that "the hero is an ass" is not a formula for a successful show.* Especially one that is supposed to be nominally child friendly.

      *You can get away with it for an episode here or there, but not constantly.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I will watch it eventually

    It seems like the writers need to work out what they're doing.

    Hurry it up, folks, Who fandom is waiting for you. In the meantime, whatever. There's nothing else good to watch but don't let that encourage you to rest on Laurel's bedsheets; she's as desperate for good Who as the rest of us so get on and sort your stuff out.

    It's not hard to figure out this new Doctor so get on and write proper Who. Or fuck off.

    Yours,

    The fandom.

    1. graeme leggett

      Re: I will watch it eventually

      Gallifreybase "rate and review poll" 1800 votes when I checked just now 24% rate it 9 out 10 ("excellent") and 75% rate it 7 ("well above average") or better.

      On that unscientific poll, fandom is fairly happy with this episode.

      Overnights: 4.81 million viewers, 21% of audience, there was a shift of audience to ITV at the end of Strictly (which had 44% of audience at one point)

      Overnights have been level from episode to episode so far. So no sign the average viewer is giving up on it either.

      1. bristolmoose

        Re: I will watch it eventually

        I wouldn't take too much notice of polls. 100% of the humans polled wanted to kill the space dragon baby and that turned out to be the wrong decision.

  15. cosymart
    Facepalm

    It's Dr Who

    Let me get this right...

    A reviewer is complaining about the non-science in Dr Who. This is a series that has as it's basic premise 1) An alien who is a "Time Lord". 2) Who is hundreds of years old. 3) Happens to look like humans. 3) Regenerates and changes his appearance totally. 4) Lives in a machine that can go forward and backwards in time. 5) Said machine looks like a police box yet is infinitely large on the inside.

    Come on!

    1. Steven Raith

      Re: It's Dr Who

      There is artistic license, and there's a disregard of basic, secondary school level physics.

      One can help with the suspension of disbelief, the other utterly breaks it. The egg being laid completely ruined what had been a pretty decent little story for me.

      Steven R

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: It's Dr Who

        Sorry, that rebuttal doesn't work. What part of "basic, secondary school level physics" allows for - well, any of the points in the post you replied to?

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: It's Dr Who

          >>"Sorry, that rebuttal doesn't work. What part of "basic, secondary school level physics" allows for - well, any of the points in the post you replied to?"

          It does work, actually. There's this recurrent and flawed attack on anyone who criticizes science flaws in a show like Doctor Who which goes something like: "It contains Time Travel and a box that's larger on the inside, so why criticize something like a solid gold arrow being shot hundreds of metres..." or so forth (drawing my example from the last episode I watched). Essentially the position is that it's already demonstrated it's not realistic so what does it matter?

          It matters because Suspension of Belief is not a binary thing that you invest in utterly or turn off completely. Time travel is something that we've never encountered and doesn't contradict "basic secondary school physics". It may contradict very advanced physics but even Stephen Hawking didn't think so for a time so we can state that its presence is not going to clash with most people's understanding of science. It's a conceit that is allowable. But moons multiplying rapidly in mass, creatures laying eggs bigger than themselves a few minutes after being born... These things DO clash with our everyday knowledge. And thus more greatly damage our suspension of disbelief.

          Generally in Science Fiction you're able to have one or two "impossible" things in your "what if", and get away with it. So Arthur C. Clarke can throw in Faster Than Light travel, or Peter Watts can have his alternate strain of hominids that passed undiscovered, and you can otherwise get away with it as "hard" sci-fi. But when the "What If" becomes "Why not?" it begins to pile up to levels that turn off ever more people.

          And that's what's happening to Doctor Who. The writers aren't having the moon multiply rapidly in mass because they have a good grasp of science and an idea or conceit as to why it's not applying in this case. They're doing so because either they have such poor understanding of science that they don't know better or because they have simply ceased caring in their rush to produce whatever character moment pops into their head. Whether it's ignorance or laziness, neither is a positive quality.

          1. MJI Silver badge

            Re: It's Dr Who

            As far as I can recall ACC never had FTL travel in any of his stories

            1. Graham Marsden

              @MJI - Re: It's Dr Who

              Clarke used the Monolith to take a short cut :-)

              "My god! It's full of stars!"

            2. John Gamble

              Re: It's Dr Who

              "As far as I can recall ACC never had FTL travel in any of his stories"

              You do not recall correctly. He didn't dwell on it -- he didn't have anyone try to justify the travel in-story -- but he certainly had characters moving from point A to point A+many light years.

              His best stories were all either on Earth or within the Solar system though, so that may have contributed to your not recalling this.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: It's Dr Who

            They're doing so because either they have such poor understanding of science that they don't know better or because they have simply ceased caring in their rush to produce whatever character moment pops into their head.

            Yes! Yes! Yes!

            Which tends to be incredibly insulting to your geek centric audience.

  16. xeroks

    There's something wrong with the gravity

    Too right.

    Why can't writers get the whole concept of vehicles in free fall? It's really not complicated.

    And don't even mention the intro of that 3rd star wars film.

    Having said that, the character conflict was good, and I have an addition to my list of characters I'd like to return in future episodes....

    1. SpeakerToAliens
      Alien

      Re: There's something wrong with the gravity

      The moon *had* to be magically heavier because simulating 1/6th gravity while everyone is walking around (and The Doctor was playing with his yo-yo) would be far too costly for a BBC budget.

      In order to give the moon the same surface gravity as the Earth you'd have to add 6 times the Moon's mass without making it any larger. That would also give the Moon a density similar to uranium, so what on Earth (sorry) was the creature made of?

      1. Cameron Colley

        Re: There's something wrong with the gravity

        I came here to say exactly that, SpeakerToAliens. The idea of having the moon growing in mass was purely for budgetary reasons -- the writers wanted to send Courtney to the moon and the growing alien could have been enough for the "peril" part of the plot. Then somebody mentioned that it's very expensive to simulate the moon's gravity and it developed from there.

        1. xeroks

          Re: There's something wrong with the gravity

          Points are accepted re. lunar gravity vs budget, however, when they first appeared on the shuttle, it was not on the moon's surface. It was in free fall. In a vacuum.

          If there was anything keeping their feet on the deck, it could only have been caused by the shuttle's own thrusters.

          So the Doc was a wee bit premature jumping up and down complaining about the gravity.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: There's something wrong with the gravity

            The BBC drops a Uranium Clanger?

            Perhaps it was a creature that sucked in a fleck of neutron star matter through a white hole or a worm hole, or something?

            Mind you... the brief glimpse we got of the creature in the sky was a touch Cthulu. Or FSM.

        2. Tom 13

          Re: it developed from there.

          No, it didn't. From there it simply spiraled out of control.

          There are two ways to deal with that budgetary problem:

          1. Develop the story around it. What is causing the gravity to increase? How is that happening? The key bit here is the thing that is creating mass out of nothing or the thing that is transferring mass to the moon. Cybermen or Daleks could easily handle that with some technobabble about advanced gravitic machinery and a plot to destroy Earth. This particular Space Dragon and it's Deus Ex Machina ending? Not so much.

          2. Review the old Tom Baker tapes and follow their lead. More specifically, ignore the fact that you ought to employ special effects for gravity on the moon.

          Oddly enough if they had opted for 2 and stuck with a Space Dragon being spawned on the Moon, the rest of it might have worked. Although you'd need a new reason for the moral dilemma.

  17. Andrew Jones 2

    Moffat strikes again.....

    Personally we were frustrated by 2 things - which made the rest of the episode nonsensical anyway.

    1) The absolutely terrible CGI when they first stepped onto the moon was jarring and immediately took us out of the fantasy.

    2) As soon as the power came back on in the mining colony, despite the fact they had not entered through any sort of airlock chamber, they were immediately able to take their helmets off and breathe oxygen - because apparently (although never explained) in the future we seem to of discovered a way to immediately fill a space with breathable air. Further, although the moon has gravity and that must be exactly the same level of gravity as on the earth, because there was no floating on the moon, nor being crushed - when there is a breach at the mining colony - suddenly things start flying towards the breach - despite the fact the pressure inside the colony must be the same as the pressure outside the colony - because there was never a need to pressurise or de-pressurise anything.......

    How Moffat can destroy something the way he is with Doctor Who - while at same time create something as entertaining and full of real logic as Sherlock - is baffling.....

    1. Chronigan

      Re: Moffat strikes again.....

      Series 1 of sherlock was great. 2 was okay. But 3 was as nonsensical as Doctor Who. The Moff has become addicted to fast paced action, never giving his audience time to think. He doesn't want them to, otherwise all the plot holes and idiocies become readily apparent. He prefers being clever to telling a good, solid story.

  18. Trollslayer Silver badge

    I have to agree

    Characters were weak and it was fluffy in the previous series.

    This time they do anything to the script to be clever with the characters.

    Get back to drama.

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. SpeakerToAliens
      Facepalm

      Re: Spoilers!

      Why the hell did you read this far if you don't want to know what happened?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Spoilers!

      Actually, it screens at 3:30am for those in GMT+8... PVR means it's there when I wake...

  20. Old Handle
    Boffin

    1.3 billion tonnes

    Sounds like alot, but the moon already weighs 50 billion times that much. I doubt we'd even notice. No one expects real science in typical sci-fi, but this is the kind of detail they could have so easily looked up, like I just did. It shows a total lack of caring.

    Another way to put that figure in perspective (of some strange sort) is that Earth itself has lost more mass than that due to escaping hydrogen since dogs were domesticated.

    1. Whiskers
      Holmes

      Re: 1.3 billion tonnes

      "Another way to put that figure in perspective (of some strange sort) is that Earth itself has lost more mass than that due to escaping hydrogen since dogs were domesticated."

      I think you could be on to something there; the dogs are aliens who've been quietly exporting dog farts to a parallel universe to build up enough mass to swap the moon for a neutron-egg to hatch a space dragon ...

      1. TechnicalBen Silver badge

        Re: 1.3 billion tonnes

        That dog story sounds strangely close to this one, just without the dogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion:_Earth_%28TV_series%29

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: 1.3 billion tonnes

        "the dogs are aliens who've been quietly exporting dog farts to a parallel universe to build up enough mass to swap the moon for a neutron-egg to hatch a space dragon"

        I think you'll find that extra mass is soup.

        1. Whiskers
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: 1.3 billion tonnes

          "I think you'll find that extra mass is soup."

          I follow your reasoning, I think. Threatening the egg would have been, as it were, something of a clanger. And of course that brings in a link with The Master, albeit tenuous. That could be interesting! <http://www.freewebs.com/1969clangers/home.htm>

    2. Tom 13

      Re: 1.3 billion tonnes

      What's worse is, I didn't run the numbers. Mentally I was only doing, "massively increased because it's causing tidal waves, wtf did the mass come from?" and it still ruined it. Because the whole egg thing really didn't explain it.

  21. John Savard Silver badge

    Not for those reasons

    Ah, and if humanity decides that saving the lives of their own innocent children is more important than not killing an innocent bird hatchling, then they don't deserve to take the training wheels off their bicycle! To me, that's the flaw in the episode, as this particular moral conundrum is unlikely for anyone to take seriously.

    That the Moon's mass would change because of whether a creature is alive or dead - well, the Incredible Hulk has more mass than Bruce Banner, so this is a typical comic-book level scientific solecism. For the Doctor to leave the moral decision up to an individual representative of humanity - well, if he let the U.N. or the politicians decide it, the result would have been predictable, and where's the dramatic tension in that?

    So it sounds to me like it's rubbish, all right, but not for the reasons, and not as bad rubbish, as the reviewer makes out.

  22. tkioz

    What an episode of utter poop. I know Doctor Who is far from 'hard' sci-fi but there is soft and then there is this crap. The moon is an egg, really? Really? REALLY!?!?

    And then we get to the paper thin allegory for abortion (Really Doctor Who?) with the Doctor leaving it to 'womenkind' and judging humanity for wanting to survive... I wanted to slap Clara when she tapped the abort button. Putting billions of lives at risk for her morals. Stupid bitch.

    And the plotholes... oh dear god the plotholes!

    Seriously I've been giving this season a chance, but I'm getting to the point where I'm going to drop it if things don't pick up, there has been one good episode (the bank episode), all the others have been retreads of previous nuWho episodes, only not as good.

  23. Phoenix50

    Oh dear.

    So many people taking so little, so seriously.

    I loved it because it was another episode of Doctor Who. A show I've been watching since childhood. A show that always manages to take me back to those times. A show that's not perfect by any stretch, but it doesn't matter to me - I'll always lap it up.

    Stop being so disappointed that it doesn't meet your exacting standards for the perfect science fiction drama.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: exacting standards for the perfect science fiction drama.

      Not looking for perfect, just something passable. Maybe this episode makes some sort of sense if you're tripped out on LSD or some such, but other than that it doesn't even rise to the Robot plot level.

  24. netean

    I've given up

    I never thought I'd get to the stage where I'd given up on DW, I stuck with it through the Colin Baker dire scripts and the Bertie Bassett alien for Sylvester McCoy but I just don't want to watch anymore, it's not DW any more.

    It's a steady stream of dull, poorly written scripts and stories. It just feels like it's lost it heart and soul.

    Nothing against the cast, I like Peter Capaldi and think he could be excellent. I think the problem is Steven Moffat - he is a great writer and I like so much of the stuff he's done, except Doctor Who.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pointless Reviews

    TV Shows? Movies? What next? Theatre? X-Factor recaps? Secondary votes on who should be kicked out of "Strictly Come Dancing"?

    For reviews of whats hot and whats not in the non IT world I go to Digital Spy. For Reviews of the Geeky media I go to Den of Geek. For intelligent discussion of IT related stories I visit El Reg.

    The Reg's attempt to bring in these types of reviews, and I cannot work out if this Doctor Who review is meant to be funny or not, is failing badly. Please give it up. Stick to what you are VERY good at, don't spoil your credibility with really poor reviews of things other sites cover much better and have done for a long time. It's not about whether I agree or disagree with the writers opinions here, but the actual pieces themselves are just very very poor. If this was meant to be a 'joke' review (and I just cannot make up my mind about that) then please leave the comedy to Dabbsy, who does it MUCH better.

    1. Steven Raith

      Re: Pointless Reviews

      It's the Weekend Edition - basically a few bootnotes-esque articles that may or may not be related to IT, but are related to our general shared interests. If you missed the announcement, it's here:

      See here for detais

      I don't mind it at all, it gives me something interesting to read on a Sunday morning with a hangover and some more opportunities for expanded commentard interaction (as we aren't posting when we're meant to be working - I know I certainly find I can't dedicate as much time to spouting crap when I'm supposed to be doing something else I'm getting paid for) so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

      Steven R

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Pointless Reviews

      "For intelligent discussion of IT related stories I visit El Reg.

      bwahahahaha!

  26. heyrick Silver badge

    Weird

    Previous Doctors liked humans, thought they were special and worth looking after. This Doctor seems to have some disdain for them, as if saving humanity from things they don't know about is a boring chore, like taking out the rubbish on a Thursday evening. Clara was The Impossible Girl who turns up in all sorts of places and ways and now the has been demoted to tag-along teacher.

    Best bit of the episode: Tell me, or I'll smack you so hard you'll regenerate.

    Worst bit of the episode: pretty much everything else.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Weird

      "Tell me, or I'll smack you so hard you'll regenerate."

      Would the threat of violence be so funny if it was from a male to a female character?

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Weird

        Oh such political correctness... It was the line that I found funny, not the implied threat of violence (which is poor considering tidal waves probably killed millions and the characters got within a fraction of a second of nuking a huge monster in the moon, and several characters were killed onscreen by giant germs).

        Would it be funny if it was male to male? Yes.

        Would it be funny if it was male to female? I would like to hope that a female doctor would have handled the situation ENTIRELY differently. I rather suspect the previous dozen Doctors would be spinning in their graves, if they had them, at how this went down.

  27. Chris G Silver badge

    Regenerating The Doctor

    Doctor Who has always been abominable and I saw the first one as a kid already into Sci-fi.

    What little I have seen of recent series (only had a Spanish TV for a week and lived here for years)

    has been as laughable as it always has been, I know there is a certain Kitsch about it but often the shows are embarrassingly poor. Fortunately most actors have as little knowledge of the gemre as the writers appear to have.

    Maybe the Beeb could try to get the likes of Peter Hamilton or Alastair Reynolds to write a series, they are both very British writers who undoubtedly have grown up with DW.

    Add a slightly better budget for sets and effects and there could be a winner on it's way. The average BBC writer seems to have insufficient knowledge of how a toaster works never mind basic cosmology, planetology, physics, humanity or ordering a Big Mac.

    1. graeme leggett

      Re: Regenerating The Doctor

      "Fortunately most actors have as little knowledge of the gemre as the writers appear to have"

      A lot of the writers, actors and production team all grew up with or have previous experience of DW.

      Capaldi is a long term fan, as was Tennant, Moffat and Russel T Davies too. Phil Ford (Into the Dalek) wrote for Sarah Jane Adventures, and the Doctor Who Adventure Games. Gatiss (Sherwood) wrote Doctor Who short stories in the 90s too. Gareth Roberts (Caretaker) was writing Doctor Who novels in the 1990s.

      Basically the fans have taken over the asylum. Gatiss is good with reworking and pastiche (if you note his involvement with H G Wells adaptations, Quatermass etc)

      Since I mentioned actors. Tony Osoba (the other other member of the shuttle crew) has been in Doctor Who twice before, though for more screen time than he got this time around.)

      1. Chris G Silver badge

        Re: Regenerating The Doctor

        I was referring more to science fiction than Doctor Who specifically, I have never read a Doctor Who novel so cannot comment on them but based on the decades of programs the script writers have had at beast only a sketchy knowledge of Sci-fi and less of general science, that is in my opinion.

        If their knowledge was better, then why such ludicrous writing?

        Even as a pre-teen I felt embarrassed to watch some episodes with such an appalling lack of attention to detail that even in the '60s was only a Public Library away and now the information is available from the phone in your pocket.

        Worse for me is the low budget effects, often apparently achieved with products from under someone's kitchen sink or CGI that many 16 year olds could better.

        For me the best actor/character ever in any of the Dr Who series was Roger Delgado as Magister (The Master)

        1. arrbee

          Re: Regenerating The Doctor

          "I have never read a Doctor Who novel "

          Harvest of Time by Alastair Reynolds; an entertaining read, especially if you remember the Jon Pertwee doctor and, indeed, Delgado's Master

          There is also "Wheel of Ice" by Stephen Baxter, set in the era of the Patrick Troughton doctor, although I thought that was a bit more obviously 'young adult'

    2. Vic

      Re: Regenerating The Doctor

      Maybe the Beeb could try to get the likes of Peter Hamilton or Alastair Reynolds to write a series

      I'd rather see Andy Hamilton have a bash...

      Vic.

  28. TheProf
    Mushroom

    The end

    I'm hoping that the finale ties this disappointing (so far) season up with a brilliant 'ah, it all makes sense now' moment. There was a shot near the end when Capaldi's expression altered enough to signal, to me, that there was something deeper going on.

    As for Kill The Moon...It's the first time I felt the characters were in any danger of dying. That the monster was a legitimate threat. But, once again, the story at times felt rushed or slow, usually in the wrong place.

    Loved the new design space suits. The moon base looked good from the outside and the black Lanzarote sand made for an interesting moonscape.

    It was the first episode in which Danny Pink hasn't annoyed me! Well not as much.

    It looks like it's just us who aren't enjoying Who.

    http://www.sfx.co.uk/2014/10/04/doctor-who-8-07-kill-the-moon-review/

  29. Volker Hett

    The script was utter crap, you don't need to be Isaac Newton or Johannes Kepler to figure out what will happen with another mass like the earth just 400.000 km away.

    This alone is so far off of Science that the Fiction Part does not help to justify it.

    Daleks, Cybermen, lesbian Lizards and even steampunk clockwork robots are excused for the fiction part, this utter BS is not.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >"what will happen with another mass like the earth just 400.000 km away"

      Google "Endor holocaust" for full details. Take that, you stupid merchandising-friendly goddam teddy bears!

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: >"what will happen with another mass like the earth just 400.000 km away"

        Doesn't gravitic field strength follow an inverse square law? So, if you had something with the mass of the Earth, but the size of a pea embedded in a lump of pumice, then the field strength at the surface of the pumice would be... what?

  30. gfx

    scripts

    I like the new Doctor better than the previous reincarnation. But last nights script was rambling. Alien space tech has to be a bit believable. Next weeks episode is from the same director hopefully with a better worked out storyline.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    use of the space shuttle

    What bugged me was the use of the space shuttle.

    I remember somewhere in my youth getting confused and thinking the shuttle was a more general purpose space vehicle which could land on the moon, go to Jupiter etc. Having an interest in space things I did learn the truth... but I'd bet there's already a whole load of adults out there which couldn't tell you what space vehicles did/do what.

    Now the shuttle's been decommissioned so there's somewhat less chance of kids actually seeing it in action. What does this teach young kids watching it now?

    I know it's sci fi but surely we can expect at least a modicum of basic physics. The shuttle relies on an atmosphere in order to glide! So we have a glider, no atmosphere and the same gravity as earth. Let's think about how that should end?!

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: use of the space shuttle

      You would never have thought it would come to the point where Armageddon (1998) might be upheld as a vehicle to teach kids about Space Things?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That shuttle landing is OK actually.

      The shuttle relies on an atmosphere in order to glide! So we have a glider, no atmosphere and the same gravity as earth. Let's think about how that should end?!

      No, that's not a problem. What do you suppose was responsible for all that buffeting that suddenly began just as the shuttle neared the moon? Clearly, it can only have been some sort of an atmosphere. Problem solved!

    3. Tom 13

      Re: shuttle relies on an atmosphere in order to glide

      Er, no it doesn't. There's enough wing surface to enable stability and enable deceleration. But according to all the astronauts who've flown it, it glides exactly like a rock would.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: shuttle relies on an atmosphere in order to glide

        http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/glidshuttle.html

        I rest my case.

        Everyone knows it's not a great glider, but without that atmosphere it's going to be hitting the ground with an acceleration approaching g. Obviously you can argue on technicalities here to exactly what extent different parts of it's deceleration system plays - but without an atmosphere I think it's safe to say it's not going to be pretty.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: shuttle relies on an atmosphere in order to glide

          Who are you going to believe? The paid liars at NASA? Or the actual pilots who have flown the shuttle?

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Pint

    They "had" to make it work

    When I look at the current batch of Who episodes, well; the plot descriptions actually, then I can't help wonder if the writer "had" to make it work.

    Think about it; they threw in a lot of topics which are generally favoured by the public. Robin Hood, Orient express, Titanic, the moon; all subjects which (when done right) are bound to provide interesting mysteries and draw some attention to them.

    But I think that's also the problem of this season: it's too much!

    What I personally liked about Doctor Who was the subtlety. He wasn't always trying to save the world or England or the queen of England or the entire human race... Nonsense! Sometimes he was only helping a small group of people, sometimes even only one and sometimes he even was only trying to help himself or his companion.Or both I guess.

    But with the new new series (last seasons) it seems that all Doctor Who does is saving the world. Almost on a daily basis too. How boring is that going to get? Both for the doctor as well as the audience?

    Personally I think that's what we see happening here. Its almost as if the writers can't come up with a more subtle plot anymore. Something which simply doesn't matter at all on the grand scale of the universe, but simply matters because it makes a good story.

    I don't need the orient express to provide a story on a train. When the story is good then the train (the setting of said story) won't matter at all in the first place!

    But it seems that is something the writers behind Doctor Who don't agree with. And the result of that becomes clearly and painfully clear.

    As with the others: this is all just my opinion of course.

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: They "had" to make it work

      Blaine would be much better than the Orient Express, I have been on the Orient Express as far as Milan many years ago, it was nice not a sinister psychopathic personality the way Blaine is.

  33. xeroks

    The worst thing

    When I was 10 or so, I had the idea that the moon could have been a giant alien spaceship which went into orbit millions of years ago.

    Now, it looks like that plot line has been ruled out. Unless the universe gets another reboot, and what are the chances of that?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: The worst thing

      Crazy slavic theories unmoored to reality:

      Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory

      "The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a hypothesis that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The hypothesis was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?"

      1. xeroks

        Re: The worst thing

        I suppose it's possible, being an avid consumer of space science fiction and fact at the time, I may have read about the paper, then forgotten. Depends on how well publicised it was.

      2. Vic

        Re: The worst thing

        "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?"

        Such questions always remind me of the Not The Nine O'Clock News book. On the front cover was the tabloid-esque box containing the question "The Shah - Is He Really Dead? Turn to p.42"[1].

        On page 42 was the answer "yes" :-)

        Vic.

        [1] For our Younger Viewers, the Shah was a guy who is now dead.

    2. Peter Fairbrother 1

      Re: The worst thing

      Of course it hasn't been ruled out - the aliens in question being the space dragons .. or the symbiotic germs, who have devolved from a previously intelligent state. Or some other as-yet-unseen symbiotic aliens, who were kept inactive by a war with the germs. Or..

  34. Vociferous

    I haven't seen the episode yet, but...

    ...from the comments it sounds as if the script writer was heavily influenced by Terry Pratchett's "The Light Fantastic"?

    1. Gerard Krupa

      Re: I haven't seen the episode yet, but...

      '...from the comments it sounds as if the script writer was heavily influenced by Terry Pratchett's "The Light Fantastic"?'

      That episode would not have been made any less credible or entertaining by the addition of the grim reaper or a barbarian astronaut complaining he could only eat "shoup".

    2. Tom 13

      Re: I haven't seen the episode yet, but...

      No, if there had been a Pratchett influence it would have been more believable and funny too.

  35. nuclearstar

    I have to say this series has been incredibly boring.

    As a Doctor I think Peter Capaldi is good, just the scripts are so bad that it doesnt reflect well on him.

    They are going to the same places as always, 1930's earth, ect. What happened to going to amazing places on the other side of the universe far into the future. What happened to the alien ships and planets.

    The moon episode was terrible. It didn't make any sense at all. I was bored and was very close to just turning it off.

    I don't think Jenna Coleman will return for the next series (if there is actually going to be one). I think they need to bring back some favorites to get us interested again, Captain Jack, River, come and save Dr Who before BBC cancel the show. Of course the writing will have to be 10 times better even if they do return.

  36. Chozo

    Wife was behind sofa screaming at the spider so script was half right.

  37. Haku

    Can we have Matt back please?

    Pretty please?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Can we have Matt back please?

      Given the scripts, I doubt Smith would fare any better than Capaldi. In fact, given the scripts Capaldi is probably better able to handle it. If Smith were in the roll the character would be even more obviously wrong. It's like Clara should be looking for pods near the bedrooms because that ain't the Doctor.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    I'm just waiting.

    For him to go off on a rant ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYOlBsls-C0

    It would certainly make Doctor Who more interesting, especially when he meets some random alien and utters such gems as, "I will tear your fucking skin off!"

  39. Whiskers

    Psychotic episode?

    Could it be that one or more of the characters is experiencing some sort of nightmare or hallucination? The Doctor clearly isn't his normal self, and Clara is showing signs of stress.

  40. Tom 7 Silver badge

    If I watched any program with that kind of anally retentive attitude

    I'd have died as my major intestine would have strangled my brain despite not being capable of animation...

    ah fuck it. Have a pan galactic gargle blaster and fucking chill out!

  41. Fzzz

    numbers

    I guess given all the other issues, there wasn't really much point in the scriptwriter getting the numbers right either. But really - 1.3 billion tonnes??? The mass of the moon is 7.3x10^19 tonnes. If you added 1.3 billion tonnes, that would increase the mass of the moon by 0.000000002%. Really, no-one would notice the change in tides. That's only the mass of a small hill - roughly half a cubic kilometer of rock.

    1. csdiv

      Re: numbers

      good point they definitely got that wrong - but I guess fill in a better number then?

  42. Carneades

    And so it begins...

    There's nothing quite like TV Sci Fi for stirring the emotions. On Amazon, for instance, the most passionate, informed or simply plain daft reviews are always, always about a Sci Fi film. And so it is here. Contributors becoming exercised about the factual content of a fictional show is nothing new, but there just might be an underlying currency to their views in this case.

    Science Fiction fans tend to be brighter than the average and often hail from real world science careers, and it's the intellect of the fan base that makes it so hard to write good Sci Fi. As both an author and enthusiast I know that only too well, but Brid-Aine's observations about the lack of hard science in this latest episode ring true. It's true we accept the TARDIS, and a Time Lord, but there's good reason for that: both are aspects of a science well beyond our comprehension, at least for now. The problem with this latest episode was that it deal with science that most bright youngsters understand; mass, pressure, orbital mechanics and simple life forms, and it fell down through a combination of either poor research and even poorer costuming, or through a horrendously slashed budget.

    Missed opportunities abounded, too; why were the Doctor's space suits so ropey? We know in the real world that intense research is being undertaken on skin-tight suits for use in low-pressure environments, or even in space. But from the look of the Doctor's suits, there wasn't even any pressure differential.

    I'll stick with Dr Who, as I have since the original series, and the darkness around the Dr is curiously fascinating, but if Moffat et. al. treat a generation of youngsters with the disdain shown in this latest episode then the time might even come to revert to Star Trek.

  43. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Awful Science, Good Characterisation, Bad Taste

    I really liked the Doctor's stance on making the decision - he's not a god and he doesn't want to be. That's good and the dialogue between the women was well done and well acted. Clara's reaction didn't seem to work particularly well, though.

    But who cares when the over-arching McGuffin was so bloody awful? The magic creation of not only the new mass for the space-baby, but then the magic creation of the mass for the new moon. To say nothing of what REALLY would happen to the "egg shell" or how we could have missed all this before now. Utter tripe. Garbage. If you didn't feel your intelligence was being insulted by this, you may have to ask yourself why.

    And for no reason. The exact same moral dilemma could have been set up without using the Moon at all. Something new could have entered the Solar System on a collision course or whatever. There was no need to make this farcical mess that will forever overshadow the meat of the character development. No one will ever refer to this as "the training wheels episode" or the "Clara gets a taste of the Time Lords' perspective episode". It will always be "The stupid moon story" or "the one with the magic egg", or maybe "the one that jumped the space-shark".

    Pathetic.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: he's not a god and he doesn't want to be.

      Actually he is, he does, and he's ranted on that very point in previous episodes. Specifically the Smith ones. Which is probably what makes the Capaldi incarnation so unbelievable. I could sort of buy the whole angry man thing when Eccleston had the role. He had just condemned his race to die to save the universe from the Daleks. But the Doctor just got done undoing that tragic decision before he regenerated. There's no call for being a constantly angry ass in the current incarnation.

  44. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Holmes

    It's the script

    I was all set to pen a long post setting out why (see title) is the major failing of this episode, and the series to be honest. Analysis of shows where it has been possible to tell a self-contained story in under an hour, progress an arc theme and get the audience to actually care what happens to the characters (B5, Buffy, Original Star Trek for example) would have been called upon etc., etc..

    Then I started reading some of the comments under a review in an online broadsheet. "OMG. Can't WAIT to see what Clara is wearing next week" and I realised that it isn't about the science, philosophy and a plain simple examination of interesting ideas. New Doctor Who has to satisfy a wide range of viewers' expectations.

    What's next Saturday's episode? Monkey Tennis?

  45. crivensjings

    It's for kids, for goodness sake...! Now, go and take the stabilisers off your bikes, the lot of you.

    1. Volker Hett

      Kids who sit in front of a TV 8:30pm, so probably not the kindergarden type of kids.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        This tripe after a reasonable start by way of delivering a couple of factual facts during the show...

  46. Mexflyboy
    WTF?

    Since when did Clara become such a whinger

    I normally like Clara (strong women, yay!) but in this episode near the end, instead of a strong woman she was such a whiny byatch girl... WTF? For a teacher she's a dumbass, as it seems only NOW has she realized that Dr. Who (very well played by Capaldi) is an asshole...

    Well duh... Clara, stop your whining and suck it up, and stop acting like a girl and re-start acting like a woman!

  47. speedbird007

    Orient Express?

    I can't wait for the back-to-the-future episodes where Concorde is resurected and used to fly off into space at Mach2+

    Peter Capaldi at the controls of course and please no whiny assistants, bring back River Song.

    1. Hazmoid

      Re: Orient Express?

      Umm I think Dr Who already did that with Doctor 5 and Tegan. :) Although the Concorde actually landed on the location of the present Heathrow and Scaroth was split into shards spread through time.

    2. Darryl

      Re: Orient Express?

      Why not? If Spitfires can fly in space, why not Concordes?

  48. Richard Scratcher
    Unhappy

    Doctor WTF?

    Even worse than that unbelievably crap episode "Kill The Moon" (written by Peter Harness) are the unbelievably positive reviews of it in newspapers (Telegraph, Independent ) and websites (IMDB, sfx.co.uk).

    The reviewers all ignored how space-batshit crazy the plot was and focussed instead on how "spirited, angry and vulnerable" the character of Clara was.

    So why not scrap the Sci-fi element of Dr Who and just have him take over as barman of the Rovers Return for the rest of the series?

    1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Doctor WTF?

      I read "...take over as barman of the Rovers Return" as "...take over as Batman of the Rovers Return".

      This I like. Very much.

  49. jonfr

    Still haven't got past episode two

    I still haven't got past episode two. I don't like this new "what-ever-it-is" in the episodes. This was bad in the last series, but it is unbearable now. Somebody (the writers) is clearly doing a job that he does not like or care about, but wants the pay-check for it anyway.

    While I won't ignore the current season. It won't be on any of my favourites lists.

  50. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Joke

    Last weeks passed my lameness tolerance, so I stopped delayed watching.

    I haven't seen this weeks, and I don't think I'll bother now; there is vastly better quality subbed Anime to watch.

    Capaldi looked wrong from the start, the plots are getting worse; I'll skip this lameness until both Capaldi and script writers have been canned.

  51. bex

    Dr Who lost the plot with late Tennant episodes, they have given up with any pretense that it's SF

  52. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Summed it up for me

    SuccessCase, you've summed it up for me. I don't need the Doctor to be cold and callous. But it's way too inconsistent, one episode dozens or hundreds will die and it doesn't seem to trouble anyone one bit; the next episode, he'll be angsting the whole episode "one person to save billions? Can I do it?" (even if that person's a villain), and then some dues ex machine will pop up so he can. Also, Dr. Who has always been quite soft sci-fi, but it seems like it's gone right off the rails, from more-futuristic-than-Star-Trek pseudoscience running the Tardis etc., to (far too often) "If you believe hard enough you can do anything!" type of fluffery.

  53. Hoe

    You missed the biggest flaw..

    Their idea for a return message, turn you lights off to kill it, or leave them on to save it.

    Which is very presumptuous that they even received the message clearly, if the lights say on is that an answer or ignorance?

    Dr.Who is fast becoming hard to watch.

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They desparately need to get someone else in to write for the Doctor.

    The current guys have seriously lost the plot.

    Plain and simple.

    1. Tom 13

      The current guys have seriously lost the plot.

      And characters and the atmosphere. In fact, it feels a bit like what happens when Symantec merges with some bright new IT software vendor.

  55. john devoy

    The problem is the BBC have given complete scripting power to a couple of people who are nowhere near as clever as they think they are; I've said it before but the writer really needs to get someone honest to proofread the stories and point out all the stupidity and plot holes.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: nowhere near as clever as they think they are

      Unfortunately, they are a bit more clever than they guy who put them there. He thinks they are as clever as they think they are.

  56. Christian Berger Silver badge

    One should note that the BBC is not known for accurate reports

    It may have been fairly different from what we see on the screen. After all the BBC is not known for accurately reporting facts as they happen.

    For example I'm rather sure the British moon mission in the 1980s was not conducted with a space ship made out of wood... yet the depiction of it shown on BBC HD some years ago clearly claimed that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFRzZegVIhY

    So as usual, take it with a grain of salt, and compare it to other reports, for example from Russian Today or Al Jazeera. Every station has it's own areas where you cannot trust them.

  57. msknight Silver badge

    One of the points

    " That won’t change whether there’s a 1.3 billion tonne unhatched egg up there or a 1.3 billion tonne corpse." - I believe that this was the point. If the egg hatched and buggered off, then there was be nothing. We needed the 1.3 billion tonne corpse to keep things running on earth.

    Someone has probably pointed this slight issue out already, but I'm as disinterested in the comments as I am in the program these days.

    The script writing is bloody daft and the attempt to go back to a dark doctor is to appease a past audience; while ignoring the audience of the future who want a more energetic, slightly bungling doctor. Talk about sawing your leg off at the knee to solve an ingrowing toenail.

    1. Vic

      Re: One of the points

      Talk about sawing your leg off at the knee to solve an ingrowing toenail.

      ITYM "Talk about sawing your leg off at the knee to cure a toothache". The major desireable feature of any solution is that it be effective...

      Vic.

  58. ShadowDragon8685

    I wanted to, as Clara said, smack the Doctor so hard he Regenerated.

    Leaving aside the nonsensery with the moon, or about humans ceasing to go to space, or the fact that there's no way in literal hell that the Space Shuttle could get to the moon (it can't, not without massively engineering a project so intense it would've been simpler to scratch-build a purpose-built ship for it,) or that said space shuttle could land ON the bloody moon in the manner that it did without smashing into a BILLION tiny pieces (seriously, try that landing approach in Kerbal Space Program and see what happens - now note that KSP is much, MUCH more forgiving about lithobraking than real physics are,) ... All that aside...

    Doctor. Doctor, Doctor, Doctor. Is he *DENSE* or something? Did that last regeneration damage his brain?

    This is Clara. Oswald. She isn't Amy Pond, she isn't Martha Jones or Donna Noble, or Rose Tyler, or any of the others he knew for less time or were less important to him.

    This is Clara. Freaking. Oswald. The Impossible Girl; the one girl so *selfless* that she willingly stepped into his bloody time stream, tearing herself into *millions* of bits and flinging herself throughout all of space and time, effectively damning herself to an eternity of reincarnation, to protect *him*, from the Great Intelligence that sought to undo him at all points simultaneously. He's had fourteen lives so far, there's no telling how many *she's* had, how many times she'd had to reincarnate to save him from some act of a hostile animating force, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt it's not limited to once per regeneration of his. To some degree, she's aware of this, too.

    She is, if anything, at least as much of a hero as the Doctor, because without her his own heroics would have been derailed. She also doesn't have the benefit of his millennia of continuous experience.

    So, what the hell? She's already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt she knows what sacrifice means, that she knows what it is to do the right thing, even if it's frightening, or dangerous, or even if it means literally killing herself. The stabilizers weren't on her bike and haven't been ever since her first trip to Trenzalore, if not before. So... Has he just plain forgotten? Or is he *completely* thick, insulting her and emotionally hurting her like that?

    Or is he just being a right bastard and trying to intentionally drive her off, because if he doesn't then this copy of her will *never* get off the TARDIS and get down to the business of shagging Mr. Maths Teacher and spawning the dynasty that will lead to that poor bloke getting trapped at the end of time?

    Honestly, I wouldn't put that past him, but I'd give it even odds either way. The Doctor can be a right moron when the the show-runner wants to get rid of a companion. Remember Donna, who was dying because she'd absorbed a Time Lord's ancient memories into a human brain that was biologically unprepared to deal with it? Now do you happen to remember that Ten had, in that very control room (unless he'd put it away somewhere else,) a device capable of physically changing someone's species, at least from specifically human to specifically Time Lord? Because he sure as hell didn't.

    1. Miss Lincolnshire

      She's got a nice bum too

    2. Tom 13

      @ShadowDragon8685

      Thank-you.

      There was so very much wrong with this episode that bit nearly got lost. I realize that being continuity editor on Dr. Who is a royal PITA, but they need to appoint someone and pay attention to what they say.

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is Capaldi going the way of Colin Baker? I hope not, I generally like this different character, even though every seagull I see reminds me of him.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Is Capaldi going the way of Colin Baker?

      From CB I got more pompous than ass even though he was a pompous ass who evolved into a likeable character. The way they've written the scripts so far for Capaldi I'm getting more "ass" and maybe Valeyard, which now that he's got unlimited regenerations doesn't make sense.

  60. Tringle
    Angel

    Jumped the Shark

    See title.

  61. harpingon

    I had to watch the first few episodes with the subtitles on, because I couldn't get the dialogue. It's not accents, it's just too indistinct. That and the terrible stories means I've not continued with this season. First time ever, and I came in watching Tom Baker in 1978. Not missed much since. I even got to like Matt Smith. Quite a bit actually, but this has lost me.

  62. Mad Hobbit

    I personally have given up on the show,my crazy thoughts are that this will be last season .both the actors only have this season in contracts. and If past shows are cannon, this doctor will be evil and attack the previous doctor forhisregens.and for therecord i have watched this show since the 70s,

  63. Karmashock

    Dr Who has been like this for a long time

    Sonic Screwdriver? It thinks it is being clever and irreverent like a Samuel Beckett play but it just comes off as confused.

    I'd prefer more of a Twilight Zone format. Have each episode be a little story from a different author and try to keep each story self consistent so they make sense within their own context.

    I gave the new doctor a try... watched about half of the release episode... quickly realized it was more of the same... labeled it as "not for me"... and moved on.

  64. MJI Silver badge

    Seen much better

    Last week was better, but Moffat was better when not show running, this last episode was just silly.

    Moffat high points are

    Blink, "Are you my mummy?", GITF, Rory as a Roman Centurion and Auton. And the War Doctor.

    RTD had more shockers, but also knew how to delegate. I still think Turn Left was his highlight.

  65. Mr Rizla

    Not sure what the BBC are trying with the current series other than destroying the brand. Love the new doctor but the storylines are rubbish, simple as that, after last weekends offering now cancelled sky+ and will watch something less annoying, mind you best line was the slap comment 

    Bring back the quality of the scripts, or don’t even bother to produce

  66. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Prepares myself for some downvotes...

    Having watched all episodes since Doctor Who returned with Mr Eccleston, I gave up on Doctor Who after the third Matt Smith episode. Didn't like him, didn't like the stories either.

    Anonymous to avoid hate-mob at my door.

  67. Marcus Aurelius
    Alien

    Is the Register turning into a Doctor Who fanzine

    I'm sure it didn't give an episode by episode critique of any of the last series.

    I'm preferring Peter Capaldi over Matt Smith, who sucked in comparison to the awesomeness of David Tennant, but I agree the plots are a little on the patchy side. "Listen" however was up there with "Blink".

    The thing is Doctor Who has so many aspects and has to appeal to all those aspects. There are the people who expect the traditional opponents and there are those who want new ones. It has to appeal to kids and also appeal to its huge adult fanbase. There are some people who want sci-fi rigor and those who are aware that it just ain't gonna happen. It can't possibly do everything within one episode and therefore you can only hope that the series as a whole satisfies.

  68. TRT Silver badge

    I have to say...

    (1) Worst. Episode. Ever.

    and

    (2) Still waiting for the reveal where it's shown that the whole story took place in the fevered imagination of Lil' Miss Stroppy-pants as she was heaving chunks into the helmic regulator compartment. I mean, she should have listened in science class about conservation of mass, right?

    1. Carneades

      Re: I have to say...

      It's the one thought that's been nagging at me since watching the episode. Capaldi hinted at it with an aside "This might not be the moon - our moon..." so it might yet turn out to be someone's fevered nightmare. Here's hoping.

      1. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: I have to say...

        Hmmm... Missed that. Moffat might have the last laugh.

  69. Miss Lincolnshire

    There's a plot

    Now I've accepted that the Doctor is never going to go full Malcolm Tucker I only watch it for Clara anyway. The plots have always been rubbish.

  70. lee harvey osmond

    Yawn.

    Yes it was a clunker. So what? DW's commitment to real science has always been a bit shaky, even from day 1.

    Real science? Courtney says she has a book in her bag with describing something about gravity; Commander Whatsherface dismissed this with "Great, does it have a word search?"

    More real science: Courtney kills a spider-thing with a kitchen cleaner spray, and the Doctor rattles through a brief lecture about nuclear biology involving the word 'eukaryotic', then rapidly assesses and reassesses who present is expected to understand this.

    Speaking of day 1:

    any minute now, the TARDIS crew is going to be one irascible old git (played by an actor best known for a previous role that involved shouting at people) with occasional flashes of humour, plus a teenage girl, plus two of her schoolteachers. From Coal Hill School. Sound familiar?

    I'll bet Courtney Woods is going to start calling him Grandad next.

  71. Ben Bonsall

    Meh, Who has been crap since the last Sylvester McCoy episode. (actually, since just after, the last episodes with Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred were awesome. Or possibly Ace.)

    Billie piper was the one redeeming feature of the new Who. Ecclestone was passable. Since then it's been downhill all the way.

  72. Frankee Llonnygog

    Who's pants

    It seems to me that all UK TV now has this mushy quality (not that I can be bothered to watch much of it any more). The only slight exception recently was Utopia.

  73. Esme

    It's fantasy, not science fiction

    Dr Who never has abided by the constraints of the science fiction genre, which makes it fantasy, or perhaps (given the epic scale of some episodes) space opera. So to criticise it for not being SF is as pointless as criticising a screwdriver for not being a hammer, IMHO - they're two different things. What Dr Who has been, when at its best, is cracking good drama. I gave up on this series after the second episode simply because the writing was such utter drivel, which the excellent acting had no hope of being able to retrieve. It would be nice to see Mr Capaldi have some good scripts to work with, but until I hear that the scripts have improved, I'm staying away.

    And if you happen to like the current series just as it is - good for you! I'll not be back until it's more to my tastes though.

  74. lorisarvendu

    The Finals are in for last week

    Off-Topic I know, so sue me. Finals are in for "The Caretaker" - 6.82 million. Average Final figures for the series so far 7.43 million, making it the least watched series of Doctor Who since 2005 (next least-watched is Series 6 with 7.52 million).

    However...

    28% of those viewers are already watching up to a week later (which is why the overnights have dropped), so it's possible that even more are watching on iPlayer, which isn't counted in BARB figures. So Who could be doing even better than we imagine. Oh and the AI so far for "Moon" is 82, the same as "Listen", "Deep Breath" and "Robot". So yer average viewer doesn't particularly think this story was any worse than the other three.

    Does anyone know if downloading to a SKY box from Iplayer counts in BARB ratings or not?

    1. lorisarvendu

      Re: The Finals are in for last week

      BARB have mailed me. Iplayer downloaded to SKY counts as household figures, not IP. So the Final figures don't take into account Iplayer thru tablets or computers. Which means actual viewers are likely to be higher than BARB reports.

      Which is nice.

  75. TheAincient

    I've always been a Dr Who fan and seldom miss an episode.

    But I have to agree that this episode was utter tripe.

    It felt like the writers could not be bothered and just came up with a totally inane story and premise. They then proceed to inflict a stupid and formulaic moral dilemma upon us.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: a totally inane story and premise.

      Dr. Who can work with a totally inane story premise. But in this episode it's like they forgot who the characters were. The Doctor is acting more like the Master and they're doing the same thing to Clara they did to Ramana. I liked that Ramana was smarter and more mature than the Doctor when she first appeared. Then over the course of Key to Time they degenerated her into a clueless fawning puppy dog.

  76. This post has been deleted by its author

  77. Yugguy
    Devil

    I LIKE Peter Capaldi

    I like his crusty illogic. Makes a nice change from Doctor Who being played by children.

    I do wish Christopher Eccleston had done more though.

  78. Benchops

    Is this the real outcome of

    the sex space geckos?

  79. NBCanuck

    Sharing the load

    Clara, and most of the companions, have always gone along with the doctor on grand adventures and while they were usually contributors to the successful outcomes, when things were at the darkest they always expected him to pull a rabbit out of a hat to save everyone. It is almost always him that has to make a decision that impacts lives. Maybe as part of his cantankerous new personality the decisions of the past are weighing more heavily on him and he wanted to give her an idea of the load he carries....and that prancing around the universe isn't all just fun and games for him. This personality is older and might be a little bitter of the way the young tend to act as though nothing can hurt them then run to mom and dad when they skin their knees.

    Just another perspective.

    1. Darryl

      Re: Sharing the load

      Except that your premise ignores the whole 'Impossible Girl' premise where Clara has already shown that she can make impossible decisions and take huge risks.

  80. IsJustabloke

    I'm increasingly amazed that...

    no one at the BBC has the balls to take Moffat to one side and tell him what a cunt he is and what a shit job he's done with their "flagship" show.

    I'll be honest I've not been the biggest fan of the reboot but this stuff has just been truly truly truly awful.

  81. darkMavis

    Bend the rules, don't break them

    <quote>

    The first thing to note was the whole no-astronauts-and-no-spaceships bit, ... everyone stopped going into space.

    ...

    Even assuming that we could accept that (we absolutely can’t),

    <quote>

    Except we can accept this. This issue has been written about considerably. The motivation for going into space was the Cold War. No Cold War, no need to go into space. The prospect of humans ever seriously travelling into space has been in doubt for a while. Not sure what the missions and continued talk about Mars (or the Moon if you're Russia) has done to that position.

    Unfortunately you're right about everything else that was wrong with the episode.

    Great Sci Fi bends the rules of science, it doesn't break them.

    Time travel - no problem

    Unusual alien physiology (regeneration) - alright

    Boxes bigger on the inside - that might work

    ("basic, secondary school level physics" has nothing to say on these matters, so yes they are allowed)

    magically appearing and disappearing mass - NOPE.

    Being on the moon and seeing Earth in darkness (as they turn off all the lights), and then travelling very quickly to the Earth, seeing the moon hatch, and it being day time! - NO NO NO NO.

    This is writer Peter Harness' first Doctor Who episode. I'm not keen on there being a second.

    1. csdiv

      Re: Bend the rules, don't break them

      I appreciate your comments - but my thoughts in your critiques are this: 1) "mass appearing from nothing" if a seed - very small - was planted eons ago and then triggered to "sprout" so to speak the resulting mass might appear to come from nothing. Question would be were did the "ambiotic" fluid come from. perhaps we'll never know. 2) the being on the moon and seeing the earth in darkness then travelling to earth" - the TARDIS travels in time and space. perhaps they traveled an hour in the future to when it because daylight and the process of the moon breaking up took some time to fully occur so they were seeing the final result happen. Anyway, I see those things, while legit gripes, as production faults that should/could have been better explained, but not as plot holes per se.

      1. Vic

        Re: Bend the rules, don't break them

        if a seed - very small - was planted eons ago and then triggered to "sprout" so to speak the resulting mass might appear to come from nothing

        Cresating new mass of any appreciable quantity requires a metric fuckton of energy. See the calculation earlier in the thread.

        But if this were some sort of "seed" growing in the way we've seen seeds grow before, then there is no increase in mass whatsoever - the mass is transformed in state, not in quantity.

        Vic.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: requires a metric fuckton of energy.

          Not necessarily. It could be done by warping the mass in from somewhere else. But that would take the episode in a completely different direction than the one they took. For the one they took, yes, yes it would.

  82. Yugguy

    Suspending disbelief

    Suspending disbelief only works if the film/series/book is consistent within itself.

  83. Miss Lincolnshire

    A bit of perspective please

    I think people are reading too much into the whole thing. It's a kids show that had to wait almost 50 years for CGI to catch up and do it justice.

    Capaldi is a great actor. I enjoy his take on the Doctor. Aside from Strax, who gets some good one-liners, I couldn't care less about any of the occasional supporting cast .

    As for Clara/Jenna Louise Coleman, I would crawl naked through an ocean of radioactive Time War debris just to sniff the cotton bud that she'd cleaned her ears out with.

  84. Badvok

    This review shows a greater misunderstanding of humanity and science that any episode of Dr Who ever has. A few pointers:

    Re: "no-astronauts-and-no-spaceships", in the real world we last put a human on the moon in 1972 and yes of course we still have the rockets and facilities available to go back there at short notice - not!

    Re: "DIDN’T SHOW THEM HOW TO PRIME THE NUKES" - Eh? Where did that come from? It was a simple switch as Henry was told - not exactly rocket science.

    Re: 1.3 billion tons, yep, but this was the creature itself, when it moved away from directly under the base the kid floated up. The rest of the moon was just an empty shell.

    Re: Gained weight? Well I'd expect a creature that lives in the voids of space itself to accumulate mass from energy rather than anything mundane like eating matter. Basic science tip matter = energy.

    Re: Mass gain is not enough to affect earth - this is plain rubbish. An extra 1.3 billion tons in a lunar orbit would certainly have an effect.

    Re: Blowing it to bits would be pointless - nope, blowing it to bits would stop any further increase in weight and allow systems to settle back into regular cycles.

    And those are just a few of the simplest answers I can come up with in 2 minutes to the apparently unanswerable questions the reviewer and others have raised here. They may not be right but calling something rubbish simply because you don't understand someone else's reasoning is far, far worse.

  85. Paul Kinsler

    unlikely anyone is reading this thread any more ....

    ... but by chance last week I just (re)read the prior art for the space chicken: i.e. "Born of the Sun", Jack Williamson, 1932

    (Posting now because I only just watched the episode.)

  86. Bob Camp

    Nobody saw the link between this episode's plot and the arguments for/against abortion?

    Maybe it's because I'm across the pond and our media is saturated with this discussion. But the three women started quoting the arguments for pro-life vs. pro-choice almost verbatim. Then the only male (and doctor) left the women to discuss it among themselves, saying he had no input into the discussion. A woman who's had kids, a women who wants kids someday, and a teenager (the one who's usually making the decision).

    This regeneration of the Doctor is an @sshole. He also seems to have far less knowledge about human behavior and customs than before. He is constantly making insulting remarks to everyone around him. Nobody wants to cheer for him. I hope this is being done on purpose, so that there is some huge event at the end of the season that softens his heart.

    1. Jess

      He also seems to have far less knowledge about human behavior and customs than before.

      Having spent the previous 500 years+ (perhaps even 1000) in a tiny community that he was looked up to, would that not be completely consistent?

  87. Matrim

    Some good, some bad

    I liked lots in the episode - the filmography was excellent. The alien bugs were also believable. What I hated though was that decision when they could have gone with some simple alternatives and made it far more believable i.e

    - Clara follows earths instructions and does not intervene, the Doctor suddenly appears and intervenes and prevents the action along with some comments about humans wanting to kill everything. This would have made logical sense and would have made Clara's later attack on him more reasonable

    I don't think I was alone in thinking when Clara made her plea that 90% of people would not have been watching and even if they were 45 minutes was not enough time for governments over the planet to get the various grids switched off even excluding households) so she would get an incorrect response as no intelligent human would take that risk with the lives of their children. I was relieved when the earth said 'Kill' and then she ignored them........

    Alternately they could have then shown the practical obliteration of life on the planet also allowing the Doctor to say 'strange choice' and Clare again to argue.

    As it was they took almost the worst fluffy line possibly though they could also have announced that if everyone on the earth sent good thoughts the disaster would be averted (oh wait that's been done).

    I was not so bothered about mass and flying space dragons, the strange lack of space ships, the fact the Doctor was letting a race he knows always uses force make a decision he wanted to go an illogical way etc etc.

    Over all I like the darker Capaldi and am hoping the series can last its long winded companion wind up as Clara leaves at Christmas. I hope they dont swing the other way and make him or cheer and light with the new companion...

  88. TheRealRoland

    For the people who didn't like it...

    Just blink. It'll all go away.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: For the people who didn't like it...

      I've spent the last 7 years training myself not to blink.

  89. Kevin 6

    God this episode was crap

    As someone who loves all forms of scifi, and am very used to suspending disbelief to enjoy a story, but this had so many issues on the fundamental level it wasn't funny it was down to the turn off your brain completely, and look at some crappy action level that even most B rated SciFi movies don't get down to.

    1st issue as other pointed out they are on a shuttle in space, and have gravity prior to getting near the moon...

    The shuttle has nukes... The question is WHY? seriously they were complaining about how the egg hatching would destroy the moon, send fragments of the crust flying at the earth devastating it, and the mass loss would affect the earth, but they came to the moon with nukes to blow it up... seriously?

    They complained how the extra mass was causing issues... but like others said making kentucky fried dragon would magically change its mass? Also how was that slight increase in mass adding full earth gravity to the moon?

    One other thing on the nukes how did they magically know they had enough nukes to even hurt it? Lets face it the creature was some space bearing animal... Wouldn't its skin be pretty damn thick to survive solar radiation? Hell the nukes might have been more akin to feeding it then anything, but nope 3 last astronauts (even though they stopped training astronauts many years prior) were sent with nukes that could just been launched from earth without the shuttle, and hoping the people carrying them survive bit...

    Then there was the issue I had with the annoying school girl... Why in the world did she have a spray bottle of disinfectant? Was that actually ever explained? do school kids in England all carry bottles of spray disinfectant around with them?

    Hell even the spray bottle not working later on theoretically as the best I can figure out when Clara needed it while on the moon surface it should still work as a ball valve pulls the water liquid up... just the contents should have boiled out due to how liquids act in a vacuum, but this should have happened by the time it was 1st pulled out though as it was already exposed to space. But instead the Dr says no air...

    Throw in some crap about abortion....

    Finally back to the moon hatching... Why did the shell vaporize? Last I looked when things hatch the shells don't magically disappear. Also what was that crap about things don't destroy the nest? There are plenty of creatures that destroy what they are laid on/by hell a good number of things that hatch FEED on what they are laid near. Just look at insects.

    How does something newly born reproduce asexually, and lay an egg bigger then it

    Then there was the generally poor script on top of all of it... I've seen better scripts on B-rated horror movies.

    1 of those thing sure, maybe 2, you could suspend belief enough, but the script writer couldn't even be arsed to look up how much the friggin moon's massis, and multiply it by 6 to even get a believable number.

    I think I'll give this 3-4 more episodes then if it don't pick up just quit watching it as the script writing is abysmal.

    Sory if I just went on, and on to a rant, but seriously this episode just was idiotic.

    1. Badvok

      Re: God this episode was crap

      "1st issue as other pointed out they are on a shuttle in space, and have gravity prior to getting near the moon..."

      Err, unless you expected the shuttle to land safely on the moon whilst travelling at the speed it would need to get there in less than a human lifetime I guess there would be a need for some degree of acceleration, say 1g, to slow it down.

      "The shuttle has nukes... The question is WHY?"

      To halt any further changes, the explosion would kill/destroy whatever was causing the changes but no it wouldn't change the mass, that would still be in orbit, hence minimising the negative effects.

      "They complained how the extra mass was causing issues... but like others said making kentucky fried dragon would magically change its mass?"

      Matter = Energy from f***ing big nuclear furnace in the sky.

      "Also how was that slight increase in mass adding full earth gravity to the moon?"

      It wasn't adding it to the whole moon, when the super-dense 'chicken' moved away from directly under the base gravity totally disappeared.

      "One other thing on the nukes how did they magically know they had enough nukes to even hurt it?"

      They didn't, that was simply a comment on the typical human reaction covered in numerous places - we don't understand it = nuke it!

      "Then there was the issue I had with the annoying school girl... Why in the world did she have a spray bottle of disinfectant? Was that actually ever explained?"

      Yes, she was cleaning.

      "Hell even the spray bottle not working later on theoretically as the best I can figure out when Clara needed it while on the moon surface it should still work as a ball valve pulls the water liquid up... just the contents should have boiled out due to how liquids act in a vacuum, but this should have happened by the time it was 1st pulled out though as it was already exposed to space. But instead the Dr says no air..."

      Depends on the bottle, not all are the same!

      "Why did the shell vaporize?"

      It didn't, it just turned to dust ready to be reintegrated into a shell for the next hatching.

      "How does something newly born reproduce asexually, and lay an egg bigger then it"

      Lots of things reproduce asexually that is hardly unusual. The new egg is just a shell that then accumulates mass from direct energy conversion over time.

      I'm not saying all those are the 'right' answers but they do show that it doesn't take much thought to come up with something if you can be bothered to and don't always expect to be spoon fed.

      1. David L Webb

        Re: God this episode was crap

        "

        It wasn't adding it to the whole moon, when the super-dense 'chicken' moved away from directly under the base gravity totally disappeared.

        "

        What counts is the centre of gravity. If the creature stayed within the bounds of the moon then the centre of gravity would also stay within the moon. The base gravity wouldn't disappear when the creature shifted all that would happen is that the gravitational attraction rather than being straight down would be at some angle to the vertical. The vertical component of gravitational attraction within the base might be slightly reduced but certainly wouldn't disappear. And as far as the earth was concerned the change in the moon's centre of gravity wouldn't matter much. With Newtonian physics you would still model the earth-moon system as if all the mass of each body was concentrated at the centre of gravity and it wouldn't make much difference whether the moon's centre of gravity was at the dead centre of the moon or a little bit off to one side.

        "

        Lots of things reproduce asexually that is hardly unusual. The new egg is just a shell that then accumulates mass from direct energy conversion over time.

        "

        Except the moon hadn't been putting on mass over time it had suddenly put on mass since the gravitational effect on earth was a rapid change rather than something people had had time to adapt to over millenia. Converting sunlight falling on the moon into matter using m = e /c^2 wouldn't produce anything like enough mass over such a timescale.

        1. Badvok

          Re: God this episode was crap

          " If the creature stayed within the bounds of the moon then the centre of gravity would also stay within the moon."

          So in your view, if you were to glue a metal ball bearing inside the surface of a beach ball then that beach ball wouldn't be unbalanced? You are right in that the centre of gravity is important, you just don't understand that if one part of an object is more dense than another it does move the centre of gravity and hence alter the gravitational effect. This is apparent on the earth where some parts of the crust are thicker or more dense and hence the acceleration due to gravity is different depending on where you are.

          "Except the moon hadn't been putting on mass over time it had suddenly put on mass since the gravitational effect on earth was a rapid change rather than something people had had time to adapt to over millenia."

          It was only a suggestion for one possibility, perhaps the moon had been accumulating the energy over its lifetime (4.5 billion years) and only started converting it to matter recently, or maybe the rate of matter generation had increased, or maybe it got the energy/matter from another dimension? My point is that only stupid people dismiss things as impossible without even considering any of the infinite number of possibilities.

      2. Mister35mm

        Re: God this episode was crap

        It's proof, as if it was needed, that flagship TV series, like this need to have a decent WRITING TEAM and at least ONE, FULL TIME SCIENCE CONSULTANT, so they don't write cobblers like this.

        Doctor Who (Who = Who cares if the science makes no sense, nobody at the BBC, obviously)

        I think this is a reflection of the luvvie-culture at the BEEB.

  90. Mark York 3 Silver badge

    Lost It's Hearts.

    A few people have summed it up for me in this thread insofar I'm not sure if its "Capaldi, the scripts or direction" or any combination thereof.

    I no longer insist on watching it live Saturday morning via the VPN, or Saturday night.

    I download Saturday night & watch it either half cut on return from the bar or on Sunday night (37.5% cut) & I count myself as a fairly typical fan, with detailed knowledge of the show through the years I'm not as obsessed with it as some might think (though the wife might think & state different & admittedly I have a full size Genesis Dalek almost completely built in the garage).

    I had high hopes for this season & Capaldi, but even now I think back to his sudden emergence in the average The Time Of The Doctor & sensed things were "off".

    I think the series at present has lost it's heart's.

  91. Fluffy Bunny

    Disappearance

    "However, the reason for the Doctor’s leaving wasn’t given: not dabbling with destiny and human affairs? A device to dump Oswald? We know the Doctor’s not a quitter, which makes his reasons unclear and inadequately explained."

    I thought he would have gone back to Earth before the take-off and disabled the bombs. But that didn't come out in the story. Very strange.

  92. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    It's DR WHO.

    As far as I'm aware the annoying logo in the corner of the screen did not read "DOCUMENTARY".

    It's a kids programme.

    Why the hell are adults getting so up tight about it?

    Now where's my long scarf gone ...?

    1. h4rm0ny

      >>"It's a kids programme. Why the hell are adults getting so up tight about it?"

      I can live with the sex and violence in all the shows kids watch and games they play. But object very strongly to them being subjected to bad science. That's harmful!

  93. sisk Silver badge

    Why then did he do his utmost to be rude, nasty and generally demoralising before he left?

    Let's be fair here: Capaldi's Doctor has never been anything BUT rude and nasty to Clara, though occasionally he slips up and shows that he really does care. My read on it is that he believes he cares too much and goes out of his way to put on a show of not caring at all. Normally the balance is there to see, but in this episode he simply takes it too far.

    All the same I've been sort of wondering how long she was going to tolerate it. Cranky old men can get away with a lot because they're cranky old men, but eventually the kids start finding reasons not to visit them anymore.

    And yes, this Doctor can be quite a prat at times.

    ...an unsubtle hint that this Doctor isn’t nearly as keen on people as previous incarnations.

    Not quite the read I got on that. I think if he'd believed for one second they might actually start shooting people he'd have been standing in front, not behind. I find it far more likely that he'd already noted the lack of guns and was going out of his way to make them feel foolish.

    Next week it’s the Orient Express in space, and Clara does not feature in the trailer … will she return?

    Doubtful. At least a permanent return is doubtful. I seem to recall seeing headlines before this season (or series, depending on which side of the pond you're on) started airing that Jenna Coleman hadn't signed on for another. That pretty well means that at some point Clara's leaving.

    Maybe a companion-free Doctor would be good for a while - fewer episodes set on Earth for a start

    Companion-free? Nah. We're way overdue for an alien and/or robotic companion. Unless you count the couple episodes with K-9 there hasn't been one in the revival.

  94. Boris1

    What made me laugh was Hermione Norris's character laughing and saying that her grandmother used to post pictures on Tumblr ... given that the year was supposedly 2049 and Ms Norris is in her mid-40's surely she meant her mother .. don't get me wrong I have liked Dr Who for many, many years but whilst I am slowly coming to terms with Mr Capaldi I have found the majority of the story lines in this latest series to be weak at best. Come on BBC sort yourselves out!

  95. Boris1

    ... might I also add that it is mildly amusing that there are more comments on this topic than any other on the Register today!

  96. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This one a real dud

    We've enjoyed this season, but this episode was really off.

    Conservation of mass & energy is really pretty fundamental. If you are going to violate it, you have to explain it. They didn't bother.

    I must assume that the only script writer who paid attention in science classes had the week off when this script was thrown together.

    I hope the next episodes are better.

  97. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    LOL how much of a bunc of twats do you all feel

    she's not leaving.. never saw that coming did you?

    ROFL... nerds raging due to assumption...

    necessity is the mother of invention and assumption is the mother of twats like you :)

  98. Mister35mm
    FAIL

    Plagiarism & poor writing & piss poor science

    Ok,

    Where to start

    1. Plagiarism "Kill the moon" has been lifted from a 1930's SciFi anthology called "Before the Golden Age", edited by Isaac Asimov, isbn 0-903895-28-5 . The story it was lifted from was 'Born of the Sun' by Jack Williamson, Copyright 1934 by Street & Smith Publications.

    2. Bad science?!! Smoke on the moon???? Fire on the moon? Sound, and not silence on the moon, A a sudden weight gain of billions of tons??? Hundreds of dustbin sized? nuclear weapons in the space shuttle's tiny storage bay???

    3. Poor dialog, poor plot?? What plot?

    My opinion? There goes 45 mins I will never see again!

    And if this is childish nonsense, why is on so late in the evening??? Just to annoy adults

    It's strange the Asylum of the Daleks was really good, and 'Kill the moon' is truly appalling

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019