Doctor Who "Kill the Moon"

[Kheldarson]

So, we've been discussing this episode over on CS but, due to the content, found ourselves constrained.

Namely, the episode ended up serving as an abortion/pro-life allegory.

Now, I don't mind if they want to take on meatier topics. However, this episode was not a good way to do so. Frankly, even as a pro-lifer, I found myself insulted.

Why?

Because after the Doctor abandons them, the three ladies turn to the Earth to make the choice, since it'll affect everyone. And the Earth chooses to kill the alien in the moon.

Yet Clara stops the bombs at the last moment, at which point the Doctor rescues them all from the moon as it hatches. He congratulates her on making the right choice.

The hell?

She overrode the choice of everyone else on the entire planet. She deliberately risked the life of an entire planet on an unknown.

And the fact that the Doctor withheld info helped nothing.

Grrr.

[Jester]

I had a few problems with this episode, and they relate to some of your comments, though not to the overall theme of the episode.

You say that Clara overrode the will of the entire population of the planet, as the episode suggests that the entire planet chose to kill the alien. Have you ever seen an election? Any election? Most are considered "landslides" if one side gets 55% or more. 60% is considered a runaway. Let's say the population of earth in 2049 is like the population of any human civilization ever. Not everyone is going to agree on the course of action. There will be a split. Yet with the entire planet turning off its lights, it's suggested that the entire planet was unanimous. Bullshit. Impossible, improbable, and implausible.

Let's put that aside for a moment and look at the logistics, which is another ridiculousness foisted on us by Moffat. Who turned off the lights? If every person in a city turns off their home's lights, that city will still have lights blazing. So does the government get involved? Do they make the decision for each city? Each state? Each country? Do they do it be executive fiat or citizen voting? Since different countries run on different systems and with different philosophies, probably a mixture of the two. But then, who organizes the citizen voting? And how do they do so in a mere 45 minutes?

Now, how convenient was it for the plot that Clara and the others on the moon were facing the dark side of the earth? Because if it was daytime on the part of the earth below them, the "lights on or off" voting technique would hardly be practical.

And of course, there's that huge sunlit elephant in the room. Clara and the others were facing the dark side of the earth. Which means that only the dark side of the earth got to vote on something that affected the whole earth. People on the sunlit side of the planet got no say in their own fate. None. Not exactly democratic, now is it?

The more one examines this allegorical episode, the more it falls apart. I have no problem with television shows like this one tackling heavy topics. None. But if they're going to do so, it would be nice if they didn't insult our intelligence.

[Kheldarson]

I was just going with the logic the show presented. Otherwise, yeah, it's complete bull.

It's still complete bull, but we have the "heightened drama" of Clara's choice with the show's logic.

[Ginger Tea]

And lets not forget one big power vote.

He who controls the electric controls the vote, how many would have voted lights on but found themselves in a black out?

It's like telephone voting, anyone can vote as much as they like, most just vote a single time, but others hit redial and skew the numbers. I am in control of one single light bulb, others could affect the illumination or lack thereof of an office floor or building.

I didn't pay that much attention to what part of earth was partaking in the count, but the countries that are relatively dark in 2014 I don't see being much brighter by then especially as there were catastrophes occurring for a decade or more.

[Kheldarson]

I didn't pay that much attention to what part of earth was partaking in the count, but the countries that are relatively dark in 2014 I don't see being much brighter by then especially as there were catastrophes occurring for a decade or more.

Pretty sure it was Europe they were facing.

And interesting blog interpretation: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artatt...l_the_moon.php

[Hyena Dandy]

That's an interesting interpretation, and not the one that I saw. Not saying "Wrong" just "Different."

Personally, I don't think that the abortion thing was intended. If it was, then it was utterly botched. Even the most pro-choice person I've ever met would have some reservations about abortions performed minutes prior to birth. What I saw in it was not about abortion, but about the Doctor/Clara relationship. Specifically, I think that the reason they went there, then, was an important part of the episode. Making Courtney feel important.

Similar to Courtney, Clara was feeling 'unimportant.' The Doctor changed, keeps running off, casually insults her. To The Doctor, the highest compliment he can give someone is his trust, and he was, I think, showing his trust for Clara. Assuming we take the episode's position - Not killing the moon-dragon was the right move. The Doctor was showing trust in Clara, and humanity, by letting them decide. It also highlighted the disconnect between The Doctor and people. While previous Doctors have been callous or even pettily insulting, this Doctor just doesn't seem to GET how people work. What to him is showing his companion his utter faith in her, to her is abandoning her at a time she needs it. It emphasizes The Doctor not seeing himself as human, and takes the position that he definitely SHOULD. I definitely saw stuff other than what other people have seen, and that's interesting to me.

[Jester]

I didn't pay that much attention to what part of earth was partaking in the count, but the countries that are relatively dark in 2014 I don't see being much brighter by then especially as there were catastrophes occurring for a decade or more.

And that highlights another problem that I had not thought of: industrialized nations are going to have more of a vote than their that are less industrialized. Yet another example of how this vote "by humanity" was highly unrepresentative of much of that race.

[Hyena Dandy]

I wrote an essay on Facebook about my not-seeing-abortion in this. Figured I might repost.

I strongly disagree with the idea that "Kill the Moon" is an allegory for abortion. While I can totally see where that idea COMES from, I just don't agree. While I could definitely see a tie in the summary of the episode, I feel that the way it's presented, thematically, it would have been far different if it was intended as allegory. I don't think the specifics hold up to that interpretation.

1) Even the most permissive of pro-choice people would be unlikely to support an abortion about a hour before the baby's due.

2) The Doctor turns the choice over to 'womankind,' in the form of Clara, Courtney, and Guest Star Lady. Not to all of humankind, it's Clara's CHOICE to 'poll the audience.'

BUT.

Even if I watch it with the most pro-life view possible, and were it to be interpreted that way, it would obviously be a pro-life story... Let's look at the arguments being made.

1) Courtney, of all people, is the one who's MOST determined not to set off the bombs. Courtney is a schoolgirl who's so much of a troublemaker that her parents consider removing "Very" from "Very disruptive influence" a major step forward. Don't people who are pro-life generally say that the pregnant woman needs to 'take responsibility'? Why, then, does the irresponsible kid seem so determined to not kill the moon, while the older, more responsible woman thinks she has to, even if she doesn't want to.

2) What's scaring people into trying to kill the moon-baby is that they don't know what could happen, and it could well be disastrous. Not that they know what will happen and don't want it, or (in the case of the more conspiracy-theory-esque members of the pro-life movement) that they get a benefit.

3) The weight of the DECISION is being placed on humanity. But humanity has no part in the creation of the moon thing. Indeed, while The Doctor takes a position that this is humanity's responsibility, the episode (at least Clara, here being presented sympathetically, not in a "Here's someone sympathetic, but disagree with her" light) takes the opinion that, no, he's got to be involved, too.

To me, the arguments just don't sound like pro-life arguments. Even the"Can we destroy an innocent life?" question is still "Can we destroy an innocent life because we're scared?"

To me, the idea just doesn't seem to hold sway. The abortion allegory is on the surface, but to me, it isn't below the surface.

To me, here's how I read the episode.

Clara, our viewpoint character, is torn. She has to choose between doing the 'right' thing, and don't the 'smart' thing. Courtney, young, irresponsible, and eager, wants to do the 'right' thing. She wants to not kill the giant monster baby in the moon. The astronaut lady, however, wants to do the 'smart' thing. As much as she doesn't want to hurt the moon thing, she knows that SOMETHING bad COULD happen. She can't afford to do what's right, it could be bad.

Clara decides to do the RIGHT thing. She decides to not kill the moon. She decides to trust her instincts, and do what she feels she should. It's more dangerous, less 'responsible.' But it's a choice of idealism over cynicism. That, to me, is the key of the episode.

The other key thing, in my mind - The idea that The Doctor TRUSTED Clara to do the right thing. The reason they're THERE is that The Doctor casually insulted a companion, and she needs to be reminded of her importance. The companion is Courtney, and so she needs to be made to feel important. But I think, also, the companion is Clara. The Doctor wants to remind her why she's important. What's special about her. That she, not anyone else in the world, will always do the right thing, even if it scares her. Her sense of adventure. Her willingness to do the right thing, even if it scares her.

So, where does that put the ending of the episode? Why is Clara so angry? Because being trusted can be a lot like being betrayed. The Doctor has fundamentally misunderstood, in both Clara and Courtney's case, what it means for a person to feel important. In both situations, he has tried to 'demonstrate' importance, not be reassuring. Remember, when they go to The Moon, Clara asks The Doctor "Couldn't you just tell her she's important?"

The "WTF Hero?" is that The Doctor continues to show a lack of understanding of humanity. While the 1st sometimes seemed todislike people, he understood them well enough. 4th was alien in custom and mannerism, but ultimately he understood what made a person tick. He would know sometimes people need to be talked and reassured - EVen if he he didn't realize you should probably not grin wildly while you do it. Even 6th often seemed callous, but I'd say he wasn't callous. He was arrogant and petty. He might INSULT his companions, but he knew he was insulting them. He insulted them intentionally. 12th, though, insults Clara totally by accident. He makes disparaging comments about her appearance, but he doesn't do so out of pettiness, or distaste for her. He just doesn't understand why, for instance, he shouldn't make comments abut her aging.

A friend of mine and I were talking, recently, and he mentioned that the 12th Doctor doesn't seem to care for people's feelings. I agreed, but I think I want to revise that. I think he cares, but has no understanding of how they work. And I think this is an example of that - The Doctor has tried to comfort people, but doesn't understand how to do it. Courtney just needs to be told she's important, but rather than do that, The Doctor tells her "How about if you're the first woman on the moon?" While Matt Smith said "I've never met anyone who wasn't important," Capaldi dismisses the idea of Courtney being important, even though even by most petty standards (going on to be a world leader) she is SUPER important.

I think that the focus of the episode, therefore, is not on the idea of abortion, but on the idea that you should do what's right, it's rarely going to be as bad as you think, don't let fear rule you... And that sometimes, people need more than a demonstration. There are times, many times, that words speak louder than actions - And that's something 12 needs to learn.


Edit: P.S. Will rewatch episode tonight, looking for abortion things, and may change my mind on watching.

[Kheldarson]

Your interpretation is interesting and does have merit, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that they still ended up using an abortion allegory as part of the story. As a point, only the last half of the episode was directly tied to the direct allegory, do what about the front half?

1) Even the most permissive of pro-choice people would be unlikely to support an abortion about a hour before the baby's due.

While true, they still came up with a specific mission. And there are some that argue for late term abortion, and that's without discussing China's reputed behavior.

2) The Doctor turns the choice over to 'womankind,' in the form of Clara, Courtney, and Guest Star Lady. Not to all of humankind, it's Clara's CHOICE to 'poll the audience.'

Which is the big point for me, especially with what you state later about the Doctor being disconnected from the rest of us. He'd been going on and on about how this was humanity's choice, its turning point, and then at the moment of decision changes word choice? That means something. Either he's being disparaging, pointing out the allegory in typical hamfisted manner, he thought it was funny (which falls short for meaning potentials 1 and 2), or all of the above.

Even if I watch it with the most pro-life view possible, and were it to be interpreted that way, it would obviously be a pro-life story...

This doesn't even matter to me because the writing for it was so patronising that it hurt.

Compare this episode to "Midnight" as many are doing. In "Midnight", we're presented with a life or death situation. One which requires the best of humanity to solve. Instead we get selfishness and cruelty, which we get to experience in specific ways from the various passengers. The Doctor stands as a beacon of faith and hope, trying to get the others to come with him, but ultimately they turn on him as well. But even as humanity fails, an individual can take the stand and do what's right.

We get to see the issues in a microcosm setting. In "Kill the Moon", we don't get to see anything really. We're told that things are bad on Earth, by one person. We're told of the horrors which could ravage humanity, by one person. And by reducing the cast to three, all women, we've yanked the idea that this is humanity's problem to just one gender's. And over an egg. A baby.

This is piss poor writing.

3) The weight of the DECISION is being placed on humanity. But humanity has no part in the creation of the moon thing. Indeed, while The Doctor takes a position that this is humanity's responsibility, the episode (at least Clara, here being presented sympathetically, not in a "Here's someone sympathetic, but disagree with her" light) takes the opinion that, no, he's got to be involved, too.

While that may be what they intended to portray with the lights, it fails when Clara overrides all that. Humanity doesn't feel the weight of decision, because their decision was overridden.

To me, the arguments just don't sound like pro-life arguments. Even the"Can we destroy an innocent life?" question is still "Can we destroy an innocent life because we're scared?"

To me, the idea just doesn't seem to hold sway. The abortion allegory is on the surface, but to me, it isn't below the surface.

To me, here's how I read the episode.

Not going to argue because I do think you make a fine argument.

The "WTF Hero?" is that The Doctor continues to show a lack of understanding of humanity. *snip* I think he cares, but has no understanding of how they work. And I think this is an example of that - The Doctor has tried to comfort people, but doesn't understand how to do it.

And this is another big problem I have. By having a Doctor like this - crotchety, angry, disengaged - it feels like we've taken a step back in character development. I mean he's over 2000 years old and has dealt with humans for centuries. How the fuck does he forget that? So, to me, it feels like he simply disregards its importance, which just makes him truly unlikable. And with an unlikable main character, it just highlights the issues in the writing.

And this isn't on Capaldi. He's dealing with what he's been handed.

[Hyena Dandy]

And this is another big problem I have. By having a Doctor like this - crotchety, angry, disengaged - it feels like we've taken a step back in character development. I mean he's over 2000 years old and has dealt with humans for centuries. How the fuck does he forget that?

I might agree, if The Doctor's character development had been linear. If he'd gone in a fairly straight line from something like this, up to Matt Smith (or, I suppose, Peter Davison.) But instead, each Doctor has been different. The 1st Doctor still UNDERSTOOD people better, even if he didn't like them. I don't think it's backwards in character development, because to me, the character development is still there. He has developed from a man willing to murder an injured and helpless person when it wasn't even CLOSE to the only way he could solve the situation, to a man who will try to avoid killing, but kill when necessary, to a dedicated pacifist for whom lobotomizing even a non-sapient creature was a step too far. Here again, we see that development, as he clearly considers not killing the moon-dragon the 'right' move. Not only because he knows the future EFFECTS, but because it would be wrong to do it, period. I think if he truly disregarded its importance, the episode would never have happened. If he didn't care about people, he wouldn't have tried to fix the 'She feels unimportant.' Understanding human interaction was never a part of The Doctor's character arc, so I don't think it's a step back, just a step sideways, like a regeneration, I feel, should be. I do think, though, that learning how to work with people will be key to THIS Doctor's development.

The Doctor's different every time. He went from an aging anti-hero, to a buffoonish 'space-hobo' to a suave sophisticate who smiles at the wrong time and the wrong things, to a calm, warm, empathic gentleman adventurer, to a bulllying, blustering braggart...

What I love about Doctor Who is that it changes, constantly. One season you have Hinchcliffe's Gothic Horror, the next season you have Adams's farce. I'd be very bored if The Doctor went on a linear progression.

While true, they still came up with a specific mission.

A specific mission decided on while having no idea what was going on.

And there are some that argue for late term abortion, and that's without discussing China's reputed behavior.

There's a difference between "Late term abortion" and "Your water just broke."

This doesn't even matter to me because the writing for it was so patronising that it hurt.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that the reason it seems patronizing if you read it as a pro-life abortion thing, is because the similarities are incidental. They make it seem less like a pro-life story, more like what a pro-choice person THINKS a pro-life story is. My point was that even if I went as far as anyone I've ever met has ever gone, it still wouldn't really match up to any of their points.

We get to see the issues in a microcosm setting. In "Kill the Moon", we don't get to see anything really. We're told that things are bad on Earth, by one person. We're told of the horrors which could ravage humanity, by one person. And by reducing the cast to three, all women, we've yanked the idea that this is humanity's problem to just one gender's. And over an egg. A baby.

The fact that things are bad on Earth is, I think, not meant to be a major PART of the story. We're supposed to focus on the potential consequences. Like in "The Moonbase," where we hear over the radio "Yeah, shit is getting bad." It would have detracted from the tension in both cases, I think, to cut down to a lot of people being dead from natural disaster. This is a classic Base Under Siege style story (complete with a "When I say run, RUN!" reference) which focuses on The Doctor, his companion(s,) and a small supporting cast, in a high-tension situation. Cutting away distracts from the tightness of the episode. We don't need to understand, I think, the disasters on Earth. We don't need to feel them, those are just the things that cause this situation to come about.

I honestly don't get the comparison to Midnight, if people are making it. Aside from being at night and having a small supporting cast, I just don't see it. I see it closer to a Patrick Troughton 'Base Under Siege' story, something like "The Wheel in Space," or "Tomb of the Cybermen." If I was going for a modern episode, I'd compare it to "Waters of Mars." The Doctor showing up, making a decision, doing a thing, and getting called out on it.

Which is the big point for me, especially with what you state later about the Doctor being disconnected from the rest of us. He'd been going on and on about how this was humanity's choice, its turning point, and then at the moment of decision changes word choice? That means something. Either he's being disparaging, pointing out the allegory in typical hamfisted manner, he thought it was funny (which falls short for meaning potentials 1 and 2), or all of the above.

What I think it is, is saying "You three, sort it out." It rules out him, AND it rules out half the population of the planet below. They're humans, this is a problem for humans - But specifically, the three humans who happen to be there. Because, as I said, he is making them important. And yeah, he might be thinking it's a bit clever, but in a "You are the three people who are making this decision" way. Emphasizing the responsibility of the three people in the room, to decide between fear and nobility. This ISN'T the responsibility of all of humanity, I think is the point, and The Doctor shouldn't be acting like he has no part in it, or that it is.

And this isn't on Capaldi. He's dealing with what he's been handed.

Capaldi had a big hand in his portrayal, from what I've heard from people on both production side, and him, in interviews.

[Jester]

If that last part is true, then Capaldi has some answering to do. This season has sucked, and I've chalked it up mostly to the writers not giving Capaldi much to work with--and they haven't!--but if he is in fact influencing scripts and having more than just an actor's typical influence on the character's portrayal, well then, he deserves part of the blame we've been heaping on Moffat.

Remember, early on I was trying to give this season and this Doctor a chance, but so far, they haven't delivered. The excitement I used to feel when a crucial part of a episode would be reached, and they'd crank up that music, and something wondrous or magical or unforeseen or unpredictable or some combination of all of the above and then some would happen, and I would bouche inside of my own skin as Shit Freakin' Happened--that is just not there anymore. Not once this season I have had any urge to fist pump, shout "HELL YEAH!" or hum along to that music. Not. Bloody. Once.

I ask again, where's the energy? Where's the brilliance? Where's the excitement? Where's the FUN? Because it really hasn't been present this season.

[Ginger Tea]

I'm worried that its not just a few iffy episodes or damn near instantly forgettable adventures but a potentially shit season.

At first I was going to put it down to change of guard (even if it is only the Doctor who has changed and not the writers), the first few Smith episodes came across a bit too Tennant-y as if it was a script originally intended for him before he handed in his notice and they just did a find/replace on his looks but not mannerisms.

Had Karen not been in it (or at least not been in that WPC get up) I might not have made it to the 4th episode (not after what they did to the Daleks with that Skittles colour scheme), some might take this as me being a fair weather fan, but I've been with Who since Davidson, I've seen Bertie Basset kill people and sets that were made on Blue Peter with washing up bottles and 'sticky back plastic' (not allowed to say selotape).

Classic Who my Doctor will always be my first Davidson, I only recall seeing Baker regenerating and not the story arch the scene is from, I didn't have satalite and the beeb were not good on repeats that I can recall (unlike every other damn show) so I would have to buy the DVD's to actually experience numerous poll's #1 doctor.

Modern its Tennant, Ecclestone if he had continued could very well be there, but there wasn't enough of him to really get a full feel of him and I still prefer to think of it as a reboot than a continuation.

Smith was OK, but it took a while to see his Doctor and not a Tennant script.

I tune in every week, but now it feels force of habit than anything else, each damn story seems stupid that I try and forget ever seeing it moments after, yet the 50th I watched at least 3 times.

Hell I was so disinterested with the latest one that I didn't even notice the abortion allegory until reading this thread first time round, could he be this generations Colin Baker?

[Jester]

It took a while for a lot of people to warm up to Smith. I was one of them; even though I thought he was brilliant in the Eleventh Hour, things went a bit downhill over the next few episodes. But overall, he was a pretty damn good Doctor, and most fans eventually warmed to him.

Basing it purely unscientifically on people I know and comments I've seen online, I am not seeing anything resembling that with this Doctor, rave reviews be damned. Even at my lukewarmest with Smith, I didn't have this low an opinion of the show overall. And remember, unlike a lot of people, I like Clara. Honestly, I can sum up my feelings about this season in one simple word: Blah.

[Hyena Dandy]

That's strange, as most everyone I've talked to about it has loved Capaldi, even if the first couple episodes seemed unfocused.

[Kheldarson]

Everyone in my friend group finds Capaldi okay, but we hate how the episodes are presented. Which takes away from anything the actors are doing.