Completely bonkers, babies running a space station, terrorised by the bogey man who was literally made of snot. A nanny who was never seen till the Doctor and Ruby appeared. Chaos and nonsense, I was laughing out loud.
Doctor Who (40) 14:01: Space Babies
- Thread starter nixie
- Start date
This was already shown on Disney+ yesterday though I think they had some problem with the timings (I don't know as I don't have Disney+. Given that this episode was like another new refresh of Doctor Who - with all that info dumping that The Doctor gave to Ruby at the start about his history (she was going to be having a test later) - I would have expected them to produce a stronger story. I thought the second episode was better (if a bit camp, but no spoilers here.) Was it really necessary to give that potted history? Are there Disney+ viewers somewhere who have never seen Doctor Who (maybe asleep in an enchanted castle?)
What can you say about the story? A snot monster that the Doctor had to save because it was the only one of it's kind. Produced by an AI so that the children would have a bogeyman from a book (because these one-year-olds were reading books that weren't just A for Artificial Intelligence and B for Bogeyman.) A whole deck of snot harvested from children's noses! Another part of the ship filled with soiled nappies that had enough Methane to power an interplanetary trip. None of this was played for laughs either (which might have worked) and there was even the usual political references, this time about refugee status and about abortion/child support, neither of which we will discuss here, but would the target audience understand them, and does RTD just add them to see how much he can get away with?
What can you say about the story? A snot monster that the Doctor had to save because it was the only one of it's kind. Produced by an AI so that the children would have a bogeyman from a book (because these one-year-olds were reading books that weren't just A for Artificial Intelligence and B for Bogeyman.) A whole deck of snot harvested from children's noses! Another part of the ship filled with soiled nappies that had enough Methane to power an interplanetary trip. None of this was played for laughs either (which might have worked) and there was even the usual political references, this time about refugee status and about abortion/child support, neither of which we will discuss here, but would the target audience understand them, and does RTD just add them to see how much he can get away with?
CupofJoe
Some medals you wear on your heart not your sleeve
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2019
- Messages
- 1,642
I though the entire episode was utterly pointless. I don't think RTD was slipping in sly references, I think he just needed a McGuffin [or 3] to explain the plot holes.
The only bit I liked was the Butterfly scene at the beginning.
The only bit I liked was the Butterfly scene at the beginning.
hitmouse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Messages
- 4,325
Additionally, would the target audience understand the Ray Bradbury reference? Does it matter? Some of us did.
Terrific, bonkers fun.
They may not have all read The Sound of Thunder at school, as people of a certain age all did, however, I think that the chaos theory idea, of the 'Butterfly Effect' from flapping it's wings has a much wider awareness today (almost everyone has heard of it and it is used to explain all kinds of natural phenomena) so I think that they might have - it also appears, concerning the flapping of a housefly's wings in Norton Juster's The Phantom Tollbooth - there are several films The Sound of Thunder (2005) and The Butterfly Effect (2004) that were pitched at teenage audiences (although yes, I appreciate that they would now be thirty-somethings themselves!)
SPOILERS
To reiterate a fun episode, light to the point of floating away and leaning somewhat into Teletubbies territory (dangerous, I've heard Po can be a mean ******* when roused) and plot holes a plenty. Bogeyman and the nappy joke seemed to hark back to the farting Slitheen. Fair enough it is a series for children. I could pick at the holes, like why in sane hell would any race recall the crew and yet leave the birth machines running, and why the babies didn't grow up and why they seemed to be articulate and yet still acting like babies and why? Why? Why would Nanny hid from a load of kids for six years just because she didn't want to watch them die? Also if you don't know how to run a space station how do you keep up the maintenance?
Anyway all that aside. I think Gatwa makes a great Doctor and the chemistry between him and Gibson really carried the episode in my opinion
To reiterate a fun episode, light to the point of floating away and leaning somewhat into Teletubbies territory (dangerous, I've heard Po can be a mean ******* when roused) and plot holes a plenty. Bogeyman and the nappy joke seemed to hark back to the farting Slitheen. Fair enough it is a series for children. I could pick at the holes, like why in sane hell would any race recall the crew and yet leave the birth machines running, and why the babies didn't grow up and why they seemed to be articulate and yet still acting like babies and why? Why? Why would Nanny hid from a load of kids for six years just because she didn't want to watch them die? Also if you don't know how to run a space station how do you keep up the maintenance?
Anyway all that aside. I think Gatwa makes a great Doctor and the chemistry between him and Gibson really carried the episode in my opinion
Matteo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,391
Can I be lazy and just cut and paste what @Dave and @CupofJoe said?
This was close to what the babies left in all those nappies.
It stepped over the line between "fun" and "silly" - a giant step.
The info dump was too obvious (and unnecessary) and worse stayed with the Chibnell retcon of the Doctor's origin (I was hoping that would be quietly forgotten).
Plot holes galore. The Doctor being scared (at 1000+ years old, having seen it all and not being human)? And the explanation was weak. Enough methane? Nanny hiding? A snot monster? But now I'm repeating @Dave and @CupofJoe .
The refugee situation was dismissed - "Classic Who" would have made that the point of the episode(s) - though without the babies. The Matt Smith era also.
If this were the first episode I'd seen of Doctor Who I doubt I would have watched the second (except, just to immediately contradict myself, I always give a new series two chances).
The best bit was the Sound of Thunder reference - though it would have been better had Ruby not telegraphed it. Also the "time memory" with the snow - that was new and interesting. Presumably to be developed as the series progresses.
Gatwa is good but I hope we don't see too much of the flamboyant character he played - excellently I should stress - in Sex Education.
This was close to what the babies left in all those nappies.
It stepped over the line between "fun" and "silly" - a giant step.
The info dump was too obvious (and unnecessary) and worse stayed with the Chibnell retcon of the Doctor's origin (I was hoping that would be quietly forgotten).
Plot holes galore. The Doctor being scared (at 1000+ years old, having seen it all and not being human)? And the explanation was weak. Enough methane? Nanny hiding? A snot monster? But now I'm repeating @Dave and @CupofJoe .
The refugee situation was dismissed - "Classic Who" would have made that the point of the episode(s) - though without the babies. The Matt Smith era also.
If this were the first episode I'd seen of Doctor Who I doubt I would have watched the second (except, just to immediately contradict myself, I always give a new series two chances).
The best bit was the Sound of Thunder reference - though it would have been better had Ruby not telegraphed it. Also the "time memory" with the snow - that was new and interesting. Presumably to be developed as the series progresses.
Gatwa is good but I hope we don't see too much of the flamboyant character he played - excellently I should stress - in Sex Education.
To keep them small in order to save oxygen (as that was a plot point)?
Why the "nanny" had access to technology that could keep the humans small, but not to technology that could recover oxygen -- there must have been plenty of oxygen atoms in, for example, all those discarded nappies -- who knows (pun not intended, but what the hell)?
Nanny had previously been the "Company Accountant" - this may have meant that her skill set didn't run to "Oxygen Recovery Technology" although it obviously did run to "Keeping Humans Small" and to "Nannying". I always find that the more "silly" science fiction gets, the better it is not to worry too much about these things. If the writer didn't think very hard about them, then it isn't our job to do it for them. Just enjoy it (or not, whatever the case may be.)
This.
If you're going to let this sort of thing bother you, you might want to check that you're not, in fact, a Hobbit...
Yes... and that's how I can enjoy blockbuster films (I, Robot being an example) that I would otherwise spend the time shaking my head, while watching, at how far they are from the original source.
Danny McG
Lid closed, monkey dead.
It's her who plays Ruby, she's a very unconvincing actor IMO
pogopossum
Swamp Critter
Not a positive reaction, Smarmy. Other than liking the new Doctor. He is a fine change of direction.
Holes abound. Looking to the next episode for some indication that this series is not just about homogenizing the sharp edges of the last two (with only about a half dozen excellent episodes) Doctors. As a long term, but not exactly dedicated Whovian, I am looking forward to The Devil's Chord.
.
Holes abound. Looking to the next episode for some indication that this series is not just about homogenizing the sharp edges of the last two (with only about a half dozen excellent episodes) Doctors. As a long term, but not exactly dedicated Whovian, I am looking forward to The Devil's Chord.
.
Talking babies are cute, but I find commercials featuring adults who talk in young children's voices more amusing. Maybe we'll see that soon in Disney's Doctor Who.
I could echo previous comments (that Doctor Who is now being targeted for a demographic other than mine, ala Marvel) as the reasons this episode was so laughably so-bad-its-good, but that doesn't explain why my 14 year old son reacted exactly the same way as I did. If anything, I think I enjoyed it marginally more than he did (certainly I was less offended).
Methane propulsion aside (I did laugh at that, in spite of myself), this was an odd choice for a 1st episode of the season, and doesn't really bode well for the rest. I sincerely hope that RTD is now bowing to Disney's wishes with respect to the more easily digestible, conspicuously upbeat / positive vibe of the show. But this seemed a long distance from peak 10th Doctor era.
All that being said, Gatwa seems to be a very capable performer with a lot of range. I sincerely hope he gets the chance to dig his teeth into something dramatic this season and not just have to serve as a walking exposition machine like poor Jodie had to for 3 solid seasons.
Methane propulsion aside (I did laugh at that, in spite of myself), this was an odd choice for a 1st episode of the season, and doesn't really bode well for the rest. I sincerely hope that RTD is now bowing to Disney's wishes with respect to the more easily digestible, conspicuously upbeat / positive vibe of the show. But this seemed a long distance from peak 10th Doctor era.
All that being said, Gatwa seems to be a very capable performer with a lot of range. I sincerely hope he gets the chance to dig his teeth into something dramatic this season and not just have to serve as a walking exposition machine like poor Jodie had to for 3 solid seasons.
pogopossum
Swamp Critter
Watched Devil's Chord. Lots of striking images. Plot? So lacking that I almost turned it off.
The Doctor has often been at a loss. To present him as an incapable, fearful reactor to the evil force betrays much of the ethos of the entire series.
The new doctor, as I have said above,, is creative in his personality, charming in his originality. But plot? So lacking that I look backward to what they generally foisted on Jodie Whittaker, several of which were quite good.
The Doctor has often been at a loss. To present him as an incapable, fearful reactor to the evil force betrays much of the ethos of the entire series.
The new doctor, as I have said above,, is creative in his personality, charming in his originality. But plot? So lacking that I look backward to what they generally foisted on Jodie Whittaker, several of which were quite good.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Doctor Who Spin-off Announced at San Diego Comic-Con | Doctor Who | 1 | |
|
Doctor Who (40) 14:08: Empire of Death.. | Doctor Who | 5 | |
|
|
Doctor Who(40) 14:07: The Legend of Ruby Sunday. | Doctor Who | 9 | |
|
|
Doctor Who (40) 14:06: Rogue. | Doctor Who | 10 | |
|
|
Doctor Who (40) 14:05: Dot and Bubble. | Doctor Who | 9 |