Doctor Who SE30E05: The Poison Sky [Spoilers]

[Zixinus]

Considering that Doctor Who is supposed to be a family-oriented show with children as a core target audience, criticizing it for not taking something seriously is amusing.

I do not see why its any less valid. Just because its a children's show, its acceptable to have bad writing? Just because its a children's show, its OK to not take science seriously? Just because its a children's show, every story must be reduced to an incohorent pile of pretentiousness?

Seriously, we can't have a good, meaningful shows that isn't 18+? Dr.Who has always been supposedly acclaimed for its good writing, one so good that you were able to forgive the ridicolously fake props and hidiously low budget. Where's that in these two episodes?

[The Guid]

I don't see why the science needs to be that consistent. The entire basis of the show is that the Doctor has so much knowledge of time and science that he essentially just says that all the major scientists of the human age are mistaken in very fundamental ways. I don't see a big problem with the atmosphere device - its running already on a chemical level that we simply do not understand, why not add a way in which it can go all fiery without causing mass devestation on a mass scale? It is not inconcievable that the chemical reaction we saw was more light energy output than heat for whatever hand waving reason.

I just think people are making too big of a deal about the science elements and ignoring the more glaring problems of tactical stupidity- there is no reason to suppose that tactics become vastly more complex.

[Stark]

First, it glows from orbit. Teh Nanoz or not, that's retarded. Light = heat, and all.

Second, that doesn't even concern me. I'm bothered by the sharp decline in writing quality overall, not the scientific plausibility specifically. It just pisses me off when idiots 'contribute' by saying 'nah it's okay that it sucks shit from my anus these days because of stupid rationalisation'.

Working around stupid writers being stupid wankers is not my job; my job is to enjoy drama. Whoops, there wasn't any.

[General Zod]

I do not see why its any less valid. Just because its a children's show, its acceptable to have bad writing? Just because its a children's show, its OK to not take science seriously? Just because its a children's show, every story must be reduced to an incohorent pile of pretentiousness?

So what? There's a difference between "bad writing" and "not taking science seriously". Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy raped science in the ass 5 ways til Sunday but that doesn't mean it wasn't written well. I'm not defending this episode but dismissing something as bad writing because it ignores the way reality works is absurd.

[General Zod]

I do not see why its any less valid. Just because its a children's show, its acceptable to have bad writing? Just because its a children's show, its OK to not take science seriously? Just because its a children's show, every story must be reduced to an incohorent pile of pretentiousness?

So what? There's a difference between "bad writing" and "not taking science seriously". Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy raped science in the ass 5 ways til Sunday but that doesn't mean it wasn't written well. I'm not defending this episode but dismissing something as bad writing because it ignores the way reality works is absurd.

Ghetto edit: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, as an example.

[Zixinus]

So what? There's a difference between "bad writing" and "not taking science seriously". Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy raped science in the ass 5 ways til Sunday but that doesn't mean it wasn't written well. I'm not defending this episode but dismissing something as bad writing because it ignores the way reality works is absurd.

HGttG was a comedy. It didn't take itself seriously from the start. The fact that it rapes science is partly why its funny.

These two episodes on the other hand rape science due to bad writing. When you want to take a story seriously, don't just take the drama seriously. This is supposed to be a sci-fi show afterall.

I'm not expecting 100%, academy verified science here. THAT would be absurd. It's just that the whole "burning an entire planet's atmosphere" thing is kinda beyond ridicolous.

[NecronLord]

Good Doctor Who science can be seen in Rememberance of the Daleks or Blink - it's not real science, but it uses the science and technobabble in a generally convincing way ("First stage expansion, primary neutrino release, core collapse instigated...") this was just really rather silly.

I'd rather have had the gas be nanites, and the Doctor switch it off or something - while that's still bad, it's rather more credible than setting the planet on burning-bush-fire.

[General Zod]

HGttG was a comedy. It didn't take itself seriously from the start. The fact that it rapes science is partly why its funny.

These two episodes on the other hand rape science due to bad writing. When you want to take a story seriously, don't just take the drama seriously. This is supposed to be a sci-fi show afterall.

I'm not expecting 100%, academy verified science here. THAT would be absurd. It's just that the whole "burning an entire planet's atmosphere" thing is kinda beyond ridicolous.

Which brings me back to my original point that blaming the episode for being bad because of bad science is absurd. Doctor Who rapes science as bad as hitchhiker's guide at times, even worse on occasion. But as long as the writing's good, consistent and it's not trying to pass itself off scientifically accurate, who cares? In this particular case it just wasn't written all that well and they picked a bad way to resolve things. They could have just as easily skipped the flaming sky and went straight to saying that the gas would become inert once the Sontaran ship was blown away.