Doctor Who has long glossed over scientific logic for storytelling reasons, says Andrew.
Why complain about implausibility now?
Warning: contains spoilers for series eight episodeKill The Moon.
Doctor Whohas gained a reputation for being unrealistic.
Its become more impressionistic, favouring symbolism over physics and magic over advanced science.
Jon Pertwee would be spinning in his grave, and then presumably spinning the other way.
Except that plastic-dissolving solutions exist now, as does flesh-eating bacteria.
Is it really so unlikely that the Doctor could devise a solution such as Anti-Plastic?
Its not like most of us are scientists anyway.
Its a darkly ironic counterpoint to the Daleks fate, and it suits that particular story.
If the mutant inRevelation Of The Dalekshad looked like Jason Connery, that wouldve been jarring.
Theres also the TARDIS tractor beam towing an aluminium-encased neutron star off course inThe Creature From The Pit.
Dont even get me started on the many, many ways to kill Cybermen (Radiation kills them!
…Bad radiation?).
And yet, people can literally reach into the worlds inside it without coming under its miniaturising influence.
It is literally a storytelling rig, and it works brilliantly.
And yet, I cant help but imagine the complaints about it if Twitter had existed in 1973.
The idea that the moon is an egg is an idea you either go with or you dont.
Its a gut reaction.
At least it is pretty consistent in this tone.
Seven and a half series in, we should really know what to expect.
Its symbolic rather than logical, and some people simply dont like that approach inDoctor Who.
