|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Maybe it got hit by a huge spider-germ meteor Exactly as JaKiri said-the Doctor personally hosed over a guy's history, subverted him as a human being and the choices he made, because he did not agree with him. He constantly hosed with what SHOULD have been a fixed point in time, to the point where he BROUGHT A SECOND INSTANCE OF THE SAME PERSON INTO CONTACT, PHYSICAL CONTACT, WITH THEMSELF. It flies in the face of whatever rules we've had about Time Travel so hard, and is frankly horrifying that the Doctor would do this and utterly moronic that the Doctor would introduce forced drama to SUCH a level by not taking the sick girl to a hospital at ANY point instead of snogging Marilyn Monroe.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:I don't see why people care so much about the hard science because Doctor Who so flagrantly disregards it all the time. Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey, and all that. The only reason why the butterfly making GBS threads out a new moon pissed me off was because it was so lazy, not because humanity couldn't have science-magiced up some bullshit around not having a moon in Doctor Who. gently caress, Capaldi even addressed that early on. I don't care about the science, I just don't like how flagrantly wrong it is. No matter the setting, a creature being born out of the inside of an egg and then immediately laying another egg the same size is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:I hope I'm missing a joke here or this is really sweet I later realised that it simplifies to g / g_0 = M / M_0 and I went and did the full g = GM/r^2 like a dipshit.  This is what I get for trying to watch television and post here and maths all at the same time. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Exactly as JaKiri said-the Doctor personally hosed over a guy's history, subverted him as a human being and the choices he made, because he did not agree with him. He constantly hosed with what SHOULD have been a fixed point in time, to the point where he BROUGHT A SECOND INSTANCE OF THE SAME PERSON INTO CONTACT, PHYSICAL CONTACT, WITH THEMSELF. See Eleven was a better exploration of the darker, colder Doctor than this racist grandpa poo poo Capaldi is being given to work with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't care about the science, I just don't like how flagrantly wrong it is. No matter the setting, a creature being born out of the inside of an egg and then immediately laying another egg the same size is stupid. Oh, totally, that's the dumbest goddamn thing in the world. I hate it and there's no reasonable excuse for it, even with the silly bullshit that Doctor Who gets into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't care about the science, I just don't like how flagrantly wrong it is. No matter the setting, a creature being born out of the inside of an egg and then immediately laying another egg the same size is stupid. ...why? I mean, a creature regenerating into a whole new being upon death is also pretty silly. Where does the mass come from, et cetera. I just think having ANY hang-ups about scientific accuracy in DW is tremendously wrong-headed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:No. That was a space whale, this is a space butterfly. The Doctor Who final boss will be a space spider.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:...why? Because we have reference for poo poo laying eggs. A creature suddenly regenerating into a new iteration of itself is fantastical, and that's easier to accept.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:...why? Regenerating is fine because it uses whatever magic to transform one human sized thing into another human sized thing. It doesn't create a whole new object larger than the original.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
... It's not a chicken. And I'm saying that it's a very silly, arbitrary distinction to make between diversions from real science. DW trades on the image and theme, not on interplanetary physics math problems. If real science is getting in the way of a story, then gently caress SCIENCE. DoctorWhat fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
They should have done something realistic like having it be all part of an alien plot to hollow out the moon to turn it into a spaceship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
docbeard posted:They should have done something realistic like having it be all part of an alien plot to hollow out the moon to turn it into a spaceship. But then the moon wouldn't have been getting heavier, it would have been getting lighter ... or emitting ... ship engine energy or something. Nevermind. I'm going to watch Clara tell off the Doctor, again. At least that bit made some kind of sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:... It's not a chicken. And I'm saying that it's a very silly, arbitrary distinction to make between diversions from real science. It's not interplanetary physics or math problems, it's straight up bullshit. It's writers being too lazy to write anything interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:DW trades on the image and theme, not on interplanetary physics math problems. If real science is getting in the way of a story, then gently caress SCIENCE. Well, of course, but when during part of the story, a concept everyone understands is flagrantly disregarded, then it's just being difficult for the sake of it (or they're poo poo writers). Doesn't help that the particular story is pretty poo poo either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:... It's not a chicken. And I'm saying that it's a very silly, arbitrary distinction to make between diversions from real science. It's still laying an egg. If you want to get around real science, make it something more fantastical, don't start with the dumbed down "there's a balloon and something bad happens" version.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:... It's not a chicken. And I'm saying that it's a very silly, arbitrary distinction to make between diversions from real science. I sympathise, and I didn't even hate this episode, but do you want me to post the Sydney Newman mission statement thing? There's a line between 'don't let details get in the way of a story' and 'something so silly a 5 year old will raise an eyebrow'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't care about the science, I just don't like how flagrantly wrong it is. No matter the setting, a creature being born out of the inside of an egg and then immediately laying another egg the same size is stupid. The egg it laid was smaller (by mass) if it was the same mass as the original moon, because the creature was heavier than the moon so it's fine by conservation of energy. What if the egg it laid started out smaller but made of superdense material that grew to the size of the moon in a few moments? Is that a suitable bullshit explanation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Maybe the new moon is actually smaller but closer to the Earth so it looks the same size
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I sympathise, and I didn't even hate this episode, but do you want me to post the Sydney Newman mission statement thing? There's a line between 'don't let details get in the way of a story' and 'something so silly a 5 year old will raise an eyebrow'. No 5 year old would raise an eyebrow to this. They'll just look outside at the moon and think "That's a big space alien egg! Cool!" Some people are really trying to take all the fun out of a kids show.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Maybe it's just a kinda poo poo explanation to wrap up a mediocre episode and there's no good reason to defend it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
This episode really must have been just absolute shite, if even the usual stable of Moffat defenders can't be bothered to turn up and post about how everyone is just part of a Fendahl-like "I HATE DOCTOR WHO" gestalt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Let's just assume that the episode was the result of space cocaine* floating into the tardis and loving with everyone's head. *Like regular cocaine, but from space
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
terrordactle posted:Let's just assume that the episode was the result of space cocaine* floating into the tardis and loving with everyone's head. Wasn't that what happened in amy's choice
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
terrordactle posted:Let's just assume that the episode was the result of space cocaine* floating into the tardis and loving with everyone's head. There were many drugs called cocaine, but only one IN SPACE
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Rita Repulsa posted:Wasn't that what happened in amy's choice Far as I know, this is the explanation for everything from Doctor Who to TNG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
DoctorWhat posted:... It's not a chicken. And I'm saying that it's a very silly, arbitrary distinction to make between diversions from real science. Yeah, I just think it should have had somebody ask "where is the extra mass coming from?" and had the Doctor handwave it away. Hell, he just could have said something scornful about human understanding of physics, he's pulled that sort of poo poo before. As it is, it's just completely ignored that all this mass had to come from someplace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:Yeah, I just think it should have had somebody ask "where is the extra mass coming from?" and had the Doctor handwave it away. Hell, he just could have said something scornful about human understanding of physics, he's pulled that sort of poo poo before. As it is, it's just completely ignored that all this mass had to come from someplace. It's because of quantum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
I think I may have to bow out of this thread. I liked this episode, like this season, think Capaldi's Doctor is an interesting shift and bringing some real tough character conflict in. But here it's "not even the Moffatt apologists can defend this one".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:This episode really must have been just absolute shite, if even the usual stable of Moffat defenders can't be bothered to turn up and post about how everyone is just part of a Fendahl-like "I HATE DOCTOR WHO" gestalt. Nah, there was plenty of good character stuff in it (especially at the end), and it was a far more ambitious episode than a lot of others. I'd much rather rewatch this than, say, Time Heist or Rings of Akhaten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Yeah, this episode was just "gently caress it, let's go bonkers" with good character bits, and even if some parts didn't work as well as others, they at least tried something different. Failed experiment is better than no experiment, though I think this one was quite the success.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I later realised that it simplifies to g / g_0 = M / M_0 and I went and did the full g = GM/r^2 like a dipshit. It's ok, they already made a T-Rex that was 8,000 times more massive than in real life in Deep Breath. This season's theme - spurious creation of mass?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
One Swell Foop posted:It's ok, they already made a T-Rex that was 8,000 times more massive than in real life in Deep Breath. This season's theme - spurious creation of mass? And shrank everyone down 8,000 times smaller in Into the Dalek. By the way, that episode has my favourite bit of Capaldi acting in it and no one has commented on it yet; the moment when he sees the shrinking machine for the first time he kind of swoons at it and goes weak at the knees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
One Swell Foop posted:It's ok, they already made a T-Rex that was 8,000 times more massive than in real life in Deep Breath. This season's theme - spurious creation of mass? At least that one had an eye witness explaining that Dinosaurs were actually that humongous!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
adhuin posted:At least that one had an eye witness explaining that Dinosaurs were actually that humongous! Which was bullshit. I'd kind of like for Doctor Who to at least be accurate about real world things rather than making poo poo up for a dumb joke. It is a kids show after all, and it at least used to try to be educational.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Why couldn't it have laid a small egg that grew in size?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Why couldn't it have laid a small egg that grew in size? Because we saw that it was the same size as the moon only an instant after it had been laid?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
I am absolutely not demanding realistic physics in this show about time travel, but there is a fuckload of difference between technobabble that sounds reasonable to someone who knows nothing about physics (which is reasonable for a show like this), and the moon egg thing. It just totally took me out of the episode.Lumberjack Bonanza posted:Doctor Who is not actually sci-fi. It is fantasy which has both space travel and time travel. Any attempt to rope it in with scientific law is a fool's errand. On the other hand this is taking it too far in the other direction. Sci-fi must have realistic science? By those standards almost nothing qualifies as sci fi. No star wars, no star trek, nothing but maybe a few 'hard sci fi' novels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
marktheando posted:On the other hand this is taking it too far in the other direction. Sci-fi must have realistic science? By those standards almost nothing qualifies as sci fi. No star wars, no star trek, nothing but maybe a few 'hard sci fi' novels. Star Wars is not really science fiction either (it's even explicitly not set in the future).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Star Wars is not really science fiction either (it's even explicitly not set in the future). You're splitting straws here and ignoring his original point. Science fiction doesn't have to be set in the future, and if you want to argue that Star Wars can't be considered science fiction then there are better ways to go about it than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Star Wars is not really science fiction either (it's even explicitly not set in the future). That's the first I've heard of the idea that sci fi must be set in the future. There are lots of things I would consider sci fi that aren't in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:23
|
|