• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Doctor Who [Spoilers]

IWATCH perhaps? I know it it's supposed to monitor all sorts of stuff but when linked to a few hundred' quid's worth of phone it should provide invisibility as standard.
Wonderful one winged bird has pointed out that there's something up with this series.
I think it comes down to the Doctor being a loner and we all know Clara's scrabbling for the door marked 'exit'.

Odd that people seem unaware of his existence given his recent history, Dalek, Cybermen invasions and previous efforts by assistants to plug him into human consciousness to defeat the master etc.

This series, if anything, is a reboot to those first sixties episodes with Hartnell and a teacher from the local school.
 
An odd episode. That is, I sort of enjoyed it, but my feeling was that it didn't seem like an episode of Doctor Who. In fact, I've just put my finger on it - it was like an episode of the Sarah Jane Adventures. Nothing exactly wrong with that, of course, but not what I'd expect from the much later time-slot (I'd hoped that an 8.30 start would have heralded something rather darker). There was way too much soapy fluff, as well, although the whole thing rattled along at a fair enough pace.

The monster was ludicrous, of course, distractingly so. Why would the universe's greatest war robot, or whatever the hell it was supposed to be, have a human-like head and constantly talk out loud when making decisions? And we never got to see it move, so it just stood around looking like the bastard child of Optimus Prime and a coffee table. And Danny saved the day by putting the participants of Tumble to shame. Give me a break.

Nice to see Chris Addison at the end, though. And this "nethersphere" plotline leaves me puzzled - the policeman this week wasn't killed by, or on behalf of, the Doctor, so what's linking the people ending up there? I'm definitely sticking to my theory that "Missy" is the Master, though!
 
Peripart said:
The monster was ludicrous, of course, distractingly so. Why would the universe's greatest war robot, or whatever the hell it was supposed to be, have a human-like head and constantly talk out loud when making decisions? And we never got to see it move, so it just stood around looking like the bastard child of Optimus Prime and a coffee table.
Click to expand...
You'd better watch it again! It moved several times, on four legs, a bit crablike, perhaps. But sometimes I thought it was pedalling something like a child's bike!

It's called the Skovox Blitzer monster, according to the Telegraph review, which seemed to notice things I didn't. (Or the reviewer got given a crib-sheet!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... ouses.html
 
You'd better watch it again! It moved several times, on four legs, a bit crablike, perhaps.
Click to expand...

It did indeed, although when only the upper body was in shot it seemed to move smoothly. Not sure they thought that one through too well.
 
gncxx said:
I'd like to see it get up stairs.
Click to expand...
They said that about the Daleks, and then look what happened!

Buttons popping off all over the shop!
 
More on the Skovox Blitzer (and how it moves) here, plus other stuff:

Doctor Who Extra
- Series 1: 6. The Caretaker

It's an episode with everything from robots to romance and a new job for the Doctor... Now, Peter Capaldi and the team share the secrets behind it!

It's an episode with everything from robots to romance and a new job for the Doctor... Now, Peter Capaldi and the team share the secrets behind it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... -caretaker
 
Am loving Capaldi. I rebooted with Ecclestons and kind of lost it with Tennant. Smith just never clicked. So I'm relieved to have returned.
 
OneWingedBird said:
You'd better watch it again! It moved several times, on four legs, a bit crablike, perhaps.
Click to expand...

It did indeed, although when only the upper body was in shot it seemed to move smoothly. Not sure they thought that one through too well.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was exaggerating somewhat to make my point, so I stand corrected, although it only scuttled around for very brief periods, and then, rather unconvincingly, as if the producers weren't very confident in their own CGI. What I was driving at was that, most of the time, what we got were close-ups of its head while we were meant to infer that it was moving.

Anyhow, not an episode that stood up to too much scrutiny, in my opinion, with the most unconvincing monster for a while.*

On another topic entirely, can anyone recall the precise moment when the Doctor became able to navigate the TARDIS to wherever he wanted? It used to be a lot more hit-and-miss, and was possibly the better for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying Capaldi more than Matt Smith - I think he has the potential to be one of the best Doctors ever - but all this "let's go and see Robin Hood" (still not as bad as "Let's Kill Hitler!", of course) takes some of the element of surprise away.


*...although, now I think of it, there have been quite a few in recent years.
 
Well, that was high concept. I've been waiting for this antisocial Doctor to treat Clara unforgivably and I suppose it happened tonight. What happened to all his people skills this regeneration?

With any luck he'll make the effort to brighten up from now on. At least they didn't kill Clara, which it looked like was going to happen. Tense episode, silly resolution and... interesting for where it puts the companion relationship. Hey ho, Horror Express in space next week!
 
"Born of the Sun" Jack Williamson, Astounding 1934, much anthologised. The planets and moons of the Solar System are the eggs of giant space-birds/dragons and start to hatch.
 
I couldn't link with this at all. It didn't help that I missed the first two or three minutes.

Shuttle crash lands on the Moon? I think not! The shuttle was designed to land by gliding in the atmosphere, which the Moon doesn't have. (That's why they all wore spacesuits on the surface, OK?)

Thanks to Timble for the 30's inspiration of the storyline.

But on the whole it seemed like a poor mish-mash of Hard SF with fantasy.

I shall have to wait for the reviews to (hopefully) understand it.
 
rynner2 said:
I couldn't link with this at all. It didn't help that I missed the first two or three minutes.

Shuttle crash lands on the Moon? I think not! The shuttle was designed to land by gliding in the atmosphere, which the Moon doesn't have. (That's why they all wore spacesuits on the surface, OK?)

Thanks to Timble for the 30's inspiration of the storyline.

But on the whole it seemed like a poor mish-mash of Hard SF with fantasy.

I shall have to wait for the reviews to (hopefully) understand it.
Click to expand...


All gravity anomaly was explained when The Doctor demonstrated in shuffling around and using a YoYo.

I thought it was OK... letting the humans decide and giving the Doctor a breather. but it didn't have the gravitas of Doctor/human mass interaction we'd seen with Tennant.
However ... (pulls off cardigan) with this series, I'm more prepared to just enjoy the shows for what they are and not attempt to anally cross-reference them into some ad-hoc canon.

You can take things too seriously you know. As the trainspotter who was run over by the 19.42 Mallard 15061 at Charing Cross said.... 'This is neither on time, a proper train or the correct destination. Yet I am Fucked'.
 
All the more reason a shuttle would crash when trying to land on the moon. Admittedly, it looked a little too gentle, and stopped in a really short distance with relatively little bouncing around, but it would have been worse if it had landed gently.

More problematic was getting it to the moon in the first place. The shuttle didn't have the capacity to leave near Earth Orbit, getting to the moon would have involved more fuel than it can carry. I suppose if they converted the cargo bay to a massive fuel tank, they might be able to do it, but I seem to recall that's not particularly practical.

I enjoyed it, despite its many flaws. I did think they went through the crew a bit quickly, but the idea was to get the horror element out of the way so they could do the morality play. (According to Wikipedia, Moffat told the writer to "Hinchcliffe the shit out of the first half".)

Next week seems to be Clara-free, or at least Clara-lite. On the other hand Frank Skinner seems to be there for comedy relief.
 
jimv1 said:
All gravity anomaly was explained when The Doctor demonstrated in shuffling around and using a YoYo.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the gravity anomaly, but that only made the crash landing less likely - a space shuttle coming down on an airless Moon with Earth-like gravity? No way!
 
Anome_ said:
All the more reason a shuttle would crash when trying to land on the moon. Admittedly, it looked a little too gentle, and stopped in a really short distance with relatively little bouncing around, but it would have been worse if it had landed gently.

More problematic was getting it to the moon in the first place. The shuttle didn't have the capacity to leave near Earth Orbit, getting to the moon would have involved more fuel than it can carry. I suppose if they converted the cargo bay to a massive fuel tank, they might be able to do it, but I seem to recall that's not particularly practical.

I enjoyed it, despite its many flaws. I did think they went through the crew a bit quickly, but the idea was to get the horror element out of the way so they could do the morality play. (According to Wikipedia, Moffat told the writer to "Hinchcliffe the shit out of the first half".)

Next week seems to be Clara-free, or at least Clara-lite. On the other hand Frank Skinner seems to be there for comedy relief.
Click to expand...


Sigh.

I'm no Analist like you but a moon with more gravity means less fuel payload to get there as the gravity increases as you approach it. They could have docked with an intermediate rocket placed midway. But more importantly.... having a hula girl on the dashboard makes unfeasible driving moves possible. And don't say 'But they never showed one...'
 
rynner2 said:
jimv1 said:
All gravity anomaly was explained when The Doctor demonstrated in shuffling around and using a YoYo.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the gravity anomaly, but that only made the crash landing less likely - a space shuttle coming down on an airless Moon with Earth-like gravity? No way!
Click to expand...

I want to see your full workings out of the shuttle aerodynamics with payload linked to the mathematics with relevant trajectories, orbit times and lunar distance from Earth at that particular time. And I want to see these EXACTLY Rynner before you go on.

You may do workings out in the margin if the site allows. After all... this isn't rocket science... It's more important...it's Dr. Who we're talking about.
 
jimv1 said:
Sigh.

I'm no Analist like you but a moon with more gravity means less fuel payload to get there as the gravity increases as you approach it.
Click to expand...
But a moon with more gravity would change the the whole Earth-Moon relationship. The period of revolution would be greatly increased, for instance.

And (swings and roundabouts) if you save fuel approaching the Moon, it'll cost you more getting back!
 
rynner2 said:
jimv1 said:
Sigh.

I'm no Analist like you but a moon with more gravity means less fuel payload to get there as the gravity increases as you approach it.
Click to expand...
But a moon with more gravity would change the the whole Earth-Moon relationship. The period of revolution would be greatly increased, for instance.

And (swings and roundabouts) if you save fuel approaching the Moon, it'll cost you more getting back!
Click to expand...

That was why they were going there and why they weren't planning on going back.

Do you actually own a television?
 
jimv1 said:
I want to see your full workings out of the shuttle aerodynamics with payload linked to the mathematics with relevant trajectories, orbit times and lunar distance from Earth at that particular time. And I want to see these EXACTLY Rynner before you go on.
Click to expand...
Aerodynamics? What aerodynamics? There ain't no air there!

And if the Moon's gravity was higher than expected, it's a miracle they got as close as they did.

Sorry - this is DW 0 - Science 1! :twisted:
 
jimv1 said:
Do you actually own a television?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. but I have access to one

(And I can view iPlayer on the computer for back-up.)
 
Nevertheless.
I want to see your full mathematical workings on why this isn't possible.

And a drawing of a Dalek as well now you're being awkward..
 
The shuttle should have been flying backwards; the big motor could have slowed them down a bit (but it would have been a bumpy landing).
 
Forget the explanation Rynner, I want to see your drawing of a Dalek! Now! :D

This didn't really gel for me - but was still the only thing I;'ve watched on TV in a few days apart from F1 qualifying. And I'll be back next week.

I do hope that the schoolchild - Clarice? Chardonnay? - isn't going to be a major feature :(
 
jimv1 said:
Sigh.

I'm no Analist like you but a moon with more gravity means less fuel payload to get there as the gravity increases as you approach it. They could have docked with an intermediate rocket placed midway. But more importantly.... having a hula girl on the dashboard makes unfeasible driving moves possible. And don't say 'But they never showed one...'
Click to expand...
I'll try not to be offended by the misspelling, there. And I never claimed to be an analyst. My point was that the lack of an atmosphere would make crashing more likely than a soft landing. Also, regardless of how much gravity there might be at the time, it should have slid a lot further, as the shuttle is quite heavy, and would be moving with a lot of momentum (based on the speed with which it was approaching, and it would not be slowed down by air resistance).

As for actually getting the shuttle to the moon, NASA has a document on that here.
 
Anome_ said:
As for actually getting the shuttle to the moon, NASA has a document on that here.
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Fascinating! Just shows that DW should avoid the Hard SF end of the spectrum, and stick to the fluffier stuff!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top