The New Moon can clearly seen to be smaller than the old one.
So it either is smaller or was the same size and further away from the Earth.
Hmm, I think you're clutching at straws a bit there!
Whether the "new moon" appeared to be smaller than the original or not, I'm pretty sure that the intention was just to show that the moon was replaced so everything was OK for the future stories where it had been clearly shown to be still there apparently as it had always been!
If it looked smaller (and it didn't particularly immediately strike me personally that it did) that's down to the effects guys, not intended in the script.
Apart from anything else, if it really was a different size, unless it also by an amazing coincidence happened to still be exactly the same mass (which is not impossible if its composition changed) then it would also have to be in a higher or lower orbit to maintain its stable path around the Earth. Otherwise it would fly off, or worse still crash into the planet! Any scenario other than an identical replacement in exactly the same place would have had a great effect on the planet. and I'm sure we were supposed to believe that everything went back to exactly as it was before.
Erm this is not the first time The Doctor has been put in that position, just look at 11th's second episode, the life of the Whale or the lives of those for which the Whale carried. It pushed The Doctor to the edge and even told Amy her journey would stop there. There are countless other times this has happened, Tom Baker's Doctor is put in the difficult position of killing all Daleks or not and leading them to killing innocent of lives in the future. .
Yes, I'm aware of that. But in "The Beast Below" The Doctor pursues a course of action that he believes to be the best moral stance in the circumstances. And it seesm to us, as viewers the best of two poor options too. The fact that Doctor does take responsiblity (never cowardly) and that Amy discovers the third option, and the fact that there is a very convincing explanation for why she sees what she sees in the Star Whale and the Doctor does not, makes "The Beast Below" a truly great episode.
You can look at every Doctor and each one of them has been put in that position, to say it was a disgusting episodes shows to me you have a lack of basic understanding of the character of The Doctor and his purpose.
I thought it a disgusting episode because it framed the conflict as between humanity and the space chicken. That was wrong; we share this planet with millions of other forms of life, to disregard them or consider them worthless is exactly what "Kill the Moon" did.
I just found the New Moon reset button at the end to be a massive cop-out. Have the Moon hatch and deal with the consequences - except that the Moon has already been shown to exist beyond 2049. Or... what did the story gain from the egg's being the Moon as opposed to an incoming asteroid? It would certainly have been easier to technobabble the way out of the "tech" problems.
1. How could the moon increase in mass when surrounded by a vacuum ? Things that grow need something to feed on ?
2. If "feeding" on Sunlight how could it put on a growth "spurt" ?
3. Why didn't the creature explode in the vacuum of space (an objection that can be levelled against the Star Whale, and probably dozens of other Sci-Fi monsters)
4. What use were the wings on the space chicken (in a vacuum) ?
5. If it did lay a new egg immediately after it hatched, how was the egg fertilised ?
6. Why did the spiders that weren't spiders weave webs ? - they apparently fed off the space chicken egg, so web-weaving is a waste of effort ?
7. If the STWS were parasites of the space chicken egg, why go to the bother of attacking astronauts/miners ?
8. Why didn't the STWS explode on the atmosphere-less moon ?
No idea why some people KEEP going back over this and totally refuse to pay any attention to the dozens of perfectly decent answers they've been given.
Here's another...
The creature emits a gravity-negating field until just before it's ready to hatch. It's a natural defence allowing the species to disguise it's eggs as useless, airless moons whilst they orbit populated planets.
In other words, it's not a space-chicken, it's a space cuckoo.
There - sorted.
And why SHOULDN'T the bacteria/spiders seek out the humans - they emit heat/brain waves/scent/woteva.
Who says that what you saw was a "web" - bear in mind the simple most obvious fact that what you saw wasn't REAL spiders web. That should be enough to tell you that something can look like a web but not BE a web. (MANY sci-fi settings have web-like matter in them - it's one of the most common features ion sci-fi/monster films at TV along with slime)
Mostly - IT'S AN ALIEN
Stop demanding that it acts like a chicken just cos someone called the thing containing it "an egg" and someone else (a 14 year old kid, no less) said "It laid another egg.
Why are people insisting on taking every word in that episode as gospel?
Perfectly decent answers might have been given - but not necessarily by the people who are supposed to give them.
To amplify - I'm quite prepared to fill in the gaps where necessary, but I'd be a lot happier if the writers - and the production team in general - knew what those answers were. I don't expect, or demand, that they tell me everything - but if the reason they're not telling me is that they haven't thought it through themselves, it's rather sloppy.
Perfectly decent answers might have been given - but not necessarily by the people who are supposed to give them.
To amplify - I'm quite prepared to fill in the gaps where necessary, but I'd be a lot happier if the writers - and the production team in general - knew what those answers were. I don't expect, or demand, that they tell me everything - but if the reason they're not telling me is that they haven't thought it through themselves, it's rather sloppy.
No it's not "sloppy"- it's entirely normal for sci-fi shows to use terrestrial analogies to describe totally alien concepts.
Would you rather the Doctor had spouted some technobabble like saying "It's a zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn"?
It's no different to "The people of the forest" only being able to say "River Song" and using the word "Doctor" to mean "warrior" - not everything will have a neat, simple translation and the Doctor will use a word like "egg" simply to make it possible to communicate a basic concept of what was there - a living thing inside a container.
As I said elsewhere, it could just as easily have been a pupae. Did you see anyone run any tests on it? Is there even a test that could be done to identify what hat thing was?
Not everything said by characters in that show are meant to be taken 100% literally and I don't recall anyone complaining about other such linguistic shortcuts - Jack isn't really made of cheesecake and Jenny wasn't really the Doctor's daughter.
Would you rather the Doctor had spouted some technobabble like saying "It's a zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn"?
If you're thinking of the Star Trek: Voyager Explanation, that should be " "It's some kind of zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn"
What's more, that's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying.
I don't expect, or demand, that they tell me everything
I'm saying that the writers should know, or at least have thought about, the reasons for what's happening. Whether they choose to share that knowledge is a different question altogether. If anything, "It's a zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn" is even worse, because I immediately translate that as "I haven't thought of a decent explanation, I'm quite happy to admit it".
ETA: Add to that translation: "... and it doesn't matter anyway."
I don't see your point, surely it's allowed to discuss the same thing in more than one thread, if it's relevant, which it is IMO?
My point was there has been a lot of in depth discussion already on other threads already, but yes if you want to start a new thread so everyone can repeat the stuff they already posted on the other threads in this one too then thats cool.
Stop demanding that it acts like a chicken just cos someone called the thing containing it "an egg" and someone else (a 14 year old kid, no less) said "It laid another egg.
Why are people insisting on taking every word in that episode as gospel?
Minky,
Can I take you back to RTD's Journeys End (end of series 4) ? During this episode Davros unveils his "reality bomb" that will destroy all of reality. Now it took me about 30 seconds, for this thought to enter my mind
"If the Daleks are destroying reality where are they going to live ?"
and then
"Why would Davros do this ?"
and then
"Oh yes, he's being played as mad, RTD had to make him mad so the reality bomb would be a threat, otherwise he'd never use it"
and then
"Thats why so many villans in '70s Bond movies are mad, if your Badie is mad then the threat they pose is greater, because they don't think about their own future; its a TV and Movie trope"
So in a few minutes the two word phrase "reality bomb" had shattered my suspension of disbelief; I was no longer watching Journeys End as an enthralled viewer, I was critiquing the writing - not because I wanted to - but because some train of semi-conscious thoughts had made me.
Now "Kill the Moon" was similar, the ideas that the spider-things were parasites and the moon was an egg provoked thoughts that immediately made me question the viability of those ideas and made me loose my involvement in the drama and start critiquing it. Not because they were impossible, but because they all seemed so unlikely.
So it seems to me that, if an Author does have a character erroneously say "Its an egg" and then present some atypical egg behaviour (such as putting on weight) then they really need another character correct the statement (or for the plot to go off in a new direction) before a significant number of the audience start thinking for themselves.
My point was there has been a lot of in depth discussion already on other threads already, but yes if you want to start a new thread so everyone can repeat the stuff they already posted on the other threads in this one too then thats cool.
I'll just go off to my cave now
Well I didn't start a new thread and wouldn't have dreamt of doing so, however, the title of this thread as far as I'm concerned made it perfectly relevant and justifiable to raise the point here as well.
Not everyone reads every thread you know!
So it seems to me that, if an Author does have a character erroneously say "Its an egg" ..
But it's not an ERROR for someone to describe an unknown alien thing as an "egg". It would be an "error" if he knew exactly what it was and called it something else - but it's not an "error" if he's simply describing in easily understood terms.
And again I ask - is a "Kinder egg" and egg or not? If not, why is it called an "egg"?
Simple - it RESEMBLES and egg in terms of being roundish, having a "shell" of sorts and containing a thing.
And again - was "Jenny" really the Doctor's "daughter" as both she and the Doctor stated? Or was that just a quick and easy way to explain a complex technical matter to humans in the show and the audience at home?
Did you complain about that "Doctor's Daughter"?
How about the Tardis being called the Doctor's "Wife"? Did you complain about bad writing or anything else over that "error"?
Have you demanded to see the Doctor's Doctrate - cos might be a real title either.
Seriously - you're getting annoyed that a fictitious alien thing doesn't match your idea of what it should be.
And again - was "Jenny" really the Doctor's "daughter" as both she and the Doctor stated? Or was that just a quick and easy way to explain a complex technical matter to humans in the show and the audience at home?
Did you complain about that "Doctor's Daughter"?
I thought that line and title was changed once Georgia Moffett got the part as a nod/inside joke over the fact she is The 5th Doctor's (Peter Davison's) Daughter
I thought that line and title was changed once Georgia Moffett got the part as a nod/inside joke over the fact she is The 5th Doctor's (Peter Davison's) Daughter
It would have been hilarious to also have her play the Doctor's Wife.
But it's not an ERROR for someone to describe an unknown alien thing as an "egg". It would be an "error" if he knew exactly what it was and called it something else - but it's not an "error" if he's simply describing in easily understood terms.
And again I ask - is a "Kinder egg" and egg or not? If not, why is it called an "egg"?
Simple - it RESEMBLES and egg in terms of being roundish, having a "shell" of sorts and containing a thing.
And again - was "Jenny" really the Doctor's "daughter" as both she and the Doctor stated? Or was that just a quick and easy way to explain a complex technical matter to humans in the show and the audience at home?
Did you complain about that "Doctor's Daughter"?
How about the Tardis being called the Doctor's "Wife"? Did you complain about bad writing or anything else over that "error"?
Have you demanded to see the Doctor's Doctrate - cos might be a real title either.
Seriously - you're getting annoyed that a fictitious alien thing doesn't match your idea of what it should be.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
The Doctor's Daughter/Wife made it clear that the authors knew which daughterly/wifely characteristics the title characters had, and how they came by those characteristics in the first place.
There's no indication that the writers have given any thought to where the moon egg came from, or how closely it should resemble earth eggs, or anything like that. It feels random, like just another typical "throw this in because it sounds cool and impressive and hopefully people won't think about it" that makes up so much modern TV drama.
Seriously - you're getting annoyed that a fictitious alien thing doesn't match your idea of what it should be.
Of course, Minky, in future I will remember ...
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
... no, no I think I've got it ...
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
Can I take you back to RTD's Journeys End (end of series 4) ? During this episode Davros unveils his "reality bomb" that will destroy all of reality. Now it took me about 30 seconds, for this thought to enter my mind
"If the Daleks are destroying reality where are they going to live ?"
and then
"Why would Davros do this ?"
and then
"Oh yes, he's being played as mad, RTD had to make him mad so the reality bomb would be a threat, otherwise he'd never use it"
and then
"Thats why so many villans in '70s Bond movies are mad, if your Badie is mad then the threat they pose is greater, because they don't think about their own future; its a TV and Movie trope"
So in a few minutes the two word phrase "reality bomb" had shattered my suspension of disbelief; I was no longer watching Journeys End as an enthralled viewer, I was critiquing the writing - not because I wanted to - but because some train of semi-conscious thoughts had made me.
Now "Kill the Moon" was similar, the ideas that the spider-things were parasites and the moon was an egg provoked thoughts that immediately made me question the viability of those ideas and made me loose my involvement in the drama and start critiquing it. Not because they were impossible, but because they all seemed so unlikely.
So it seems to me that, if an Author does have a character erroneously say "Its an egg" and then present some atypical egg behaviour (such as putting on weight) then they really need another character correct the statement (or for the plot to go off in a new direction) before a significant number of the audience start thinking for themselves.
Exactly. Good drama should slowly draw you into the fictional world, not keep you outside looking in.
And the more strange and bizarre the fictional world is, the more care the writers have to take to make it believable if we're to believe in it. Something as odd as the moon-egg storyline is always going to need a lot of careful work and attention to detail just because it is so odd. The writers can't just wave their hands and say "It's OK because its weird and science fictional and alien and it sounds cool."
Jules Verne and H G Wells must have both been turning in their graves that in 2014 someone would write a story about the moon being an egg... especially since we've been there. It was real tripe!!
Having said that, Star Trek always had a thing for giant space creatures.
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
So - now you're saying that Davros spoke English and what you heard wasn't the Tardis' best effort at translating the technical name of an alien device.
Those are all genuine words from real languages on this planet that can't be directly translates into English - there's many more.
That last one is Russian for "someone who asks too many questions" - oddly enough.
If it's not possible to translate some words from German (which some of those are) into English - which is largely derived from a Germanic root - then why is it so difficult to grasp that whatever the Kaled word was might not have been translatable and "Reality Bomb" was simply the best effort at conveying the concept.
Exactly. Good drama should slowly draw you into the fictional world, not keep you outside looking in.
Thanks, my "Journey's End" experience was bizarre, because at the time I was involved in the drama, and then this sudden succession of thoughts, quite uninvited, reeled me all the way out of the dramatic world and back into the real one.
And the more strange and bizarre the fictional world is, the more care the writers have to take to make it believable if we're to believe in it. Something as odd as the moon-egg storyline is always going to need a lot of careful work and attention to detail just because it is so odd. The writers can't just wave their hands and say "It's OK because its weird and science fictional and alien and it sounds cool."
Yeah this was my thought too, fictional worlds rely on metaphor to establish a connection with our world (if there was no connection we wouldn't be watching/reading it, or at least I wouldn't) and the metaphor has to be firm; I can only say how the associations in my head work; I make no claims for anyone else but the idea that when presented with a egg metaphor I should have thought of a Kinder egg (having had to Google them) is ridiculous.
It's not about "presenting a metaphor" - it's about presenting light entertainment.
Most people get the idea that an alien "egg" might not be exactly the same as a bird egg. They may find it a bit daft to have any sort of egg-like object in place of the moon - but they accept that Doctor Who is not a documentary and don't try to make an off-the-cuff description fit with some narrow definition.
And it's not a matter of saying "it's a KInder egg". I cited those to prove that the word "egg" is used every day without referring to the ovum of a creature.
It's not about "presenting a metaphor" - it's about presenting light entertainment.
Most people get the idea that an alien "egg" might not be exactly the same as a bird egg. They may find it a bit daft to have any sort of egg-like object in place of the moon - but they accept that Doctor Who is not a documentary and don't try to make an off-the-cuff description fit with some narrow definition.
And it's not a matter of saying "it's a KInder egg". I cited those to prove that the word "egg" is used every day without referring to the ovum of a creature.
Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant details, like the Kinder egg. (After all, we do know exactly why Kinder eggs are called eggs, what egg-like properties they do and don't have, where they come from, what they're for, etc. which makes them totally useless as an analogy for the moon-egg.)
No, let's get back to basics instead...
Do you agree that in general very strange and unusual story elements require more work from the writers to make them believable?
Do you agree that for many people, something like the moon-egg would be a very strange and unusual concept? (Whether or not you personally just happened to find it strange isn't the point.)
Comments
Whether the "new moon" appeared to be smaller than the original or not, I'm pretty sure that the intention was just to show that the moon was replaced so everything was OK for the future stories where it had been clearly shown to be still there apparently as it had always been!
If it looked smaller (and it didn't particularly immediately strike me personally that it did) that's down to the effects guys, not intended in the script.
Apart from anything else, if it really was a different size, unless it also by an amazing coincidence happened to still be exactly the same mass (which is not impossible if its composition changed) then it would also have to be in a higher or lower orbit to maintain its stable path around the Earth. Otherwise it would fly off, or worse still crash into the planet! Any scenario other than an identical replacement in exactly the same place would have had a great effect on the planet. and I'm sure we were supposed to believe that everything went back to exactly as it was before.
I thought it a disgusting episode because it framed the conflict as between humanity and the space chicken. That was wrong; we share this planet with millions of other forms of life, to disregard them or consider them worthless is exactly what "Kill the Moon" did.
1. How could the moon increase in mass when surrounded by a vacuum ? Things that grow need something to feed on ?
2. If "feeding" on Sunlight how could it put on a growth "spurt" ?
3. Why didn't the creature explode in the vacuum of space (an objection that can be levelled against the Star Whale, and probably dozens of other Sci-Fi monsters)
4. What use were the wings on the space chicken (in a vacuum) ?
5. If it did lay a new egg immediately after it hatched, how was the egg fertilised ?
6. Why did the spiders that weren't spiders weave webs ? - they apparently fed off the space chicken egg, so web-weaving is a waste of effort ?
7. If the STWS were parasites of the space chicken egg, why go to the bother of attacking astronauts/miners ?
8. Why didn't the STWS explode on the atmosphere-less moon ?
Otherwise divers coming up from 30 feet after any significant time at that depth would explode, and they don't.
Now, ruptured lungs / embolisms if they try to hold their breath, the "bends" - those are problems, but asphyxia makes them rather academic.
Here's another...
The creature emits a gravity-negating field until just before it's ready to hatch. It's a natural defence allowing the species to disguise it's eggs as useless, airless moons whilst they orbit populated planets.
In other words, it's not a space-chicken, it's a space cuckoo.
There - sorted.
And why SHOULDN'T the bacteria/spiders seek out the humans - they emit heat/brain waves/scent/woteva.
Who says that what you saw was a "web" - bear in mind the simple most obvious fact that what you saw wasn't REAL spiders web. That should be enough to tell you that something can look like a web but not BE a web. (MANY sci-fi settings have web-like matter in them - it's one of the most common features ion sci-fi/monster films at TV along with slime)
Mostly - IT'S AN ALIEN
Stop demanding that it acts like a chicken just cos someone called the thing containing it "an egg" and someone else (a 14 year old kid, no less) said "It laid another egg.
Why are people insisting on taking every word in that episode as gospel?
To amplify - I'm quite prepared to fill in the gaps where necessary, but I'd be a lot happier if the writers - and the production team in general - knew what those answers were. I don't expect, or demand, that they tell me everything - but if the reason they're not telling me is that they haven't thought it through themselves, it's rather sloppy.
No it's not "sloppy"- it's entirely normal for sci-fi shows to use terrestrial analogies to describe totally alien concepts.
Would you rather the Doctor had spouted some technobabble like saying "It's a zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn"?
It's no different to "The people of the forest" only being able to say "River Song" and using the word "Doctor" to mean "warrior" - not everything will have a neat, simple translation and the Doctor will use a word like "egg" simply to make it possible to communicate a basic concept of what was there - a living thing inside a container.
As I said elsewhere, it could just as easily have been a pupae. Did you see anyone run any tests on it? Is there even a test that could be done to identify what hat thing was?
Not everything said by characters in that show are meant to be taken 100% literally and I don't recall anyone complaining about other such linguistic shortcuts - Jack isn't really made of cheesecake and Jenny wasn't really the Doctor's daughter.
If you're thinking of the Star Trek: Voyager Explanation, that should be " "It's some kind of zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn"
What's more, that's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the writers should know, or at least have thought about, the reasons for what's happening. Whether they choose to share that knowledge is a different question altogether. If anything, "It's a zygropseudomic epsiloid containing a barodynal hoptilymn" is even worse, because I immediately translate that as "I haven't thought of a decent explanation, I'm quite happy to admit it".
ETA: Add to that translation: "... and it doesn't matter anyway."
My point was there has been a lot of in depth discussion already on other threads already, but yes if you want to start a new thread so everyone can repeat the stuff they already posted on the other threads in this one too then thats cool.
I'll just go off to my cave now
Minky,
Can I take you back to RTD's Journeys End (end of series 4) ? During this episode Davros unveils his "reality bomb" that will destroy all of reality. Now it took me about 30 seconds, for this thought to enter my mind
"If the Daleks are destroying reality where are they going to live ?"
and then
"Why would Davros do this ?"
and then
"Oh yes, he's being played as mad, RTD had to make him mad so the reality bomb would be a threat, otherwise he'd never use it"
and then
"Thats why so many villans in '70s Bond movies are mad, if your Badie is mad then the threat they pose is greater, because they don't think about their own future; its a TV and Movie trope"
So in a few minutes the two word phrase "reality bomb" had shattered my suspension of disbelief; I was no longer watching Journeys End as an enthralled viewer, I was critiquing the writing - not because I wanted to - but because some train of semi-conscious thoughts had made me.
Now "Kill the Moon" was similar, the ideas that the spider-things were parasites and the moon was an egg provoked thoughts that immediately made me question the viability of those ideas and made me loose my involvement in the drama and start critiquing it. Not because they were impossible, but because they all seemed so unlikely.
So it seems to me that, if an Author does have a character erroneously say "Its an egg" and then present some atypical egg behaviour (such as putting on weight) then they really need another character correct the statement (or for the plot to go off in a new direction) before a significant number of the audience start thinking for themselves.
Not everyone reads every thread you know!
You can come out now!
But it's not an ERROR for someone to describe an unknown alien thing as an "egg". It would be an "error" if he knew exactly what it was and called it something else - but it's not an "error" if he's simply describing in easily understood terms.
And again I ask - is a "Kinder egg" and egg or not? If not, why is it called an "egg"?
Simple - it RESEMBLES and egg in terms of being roundish, having a "shell" of sorts and containing a thing.
And again - was "Jenny" really the Doctor's "daughter" as both she and the Doctor stated? Or was that just a quick and easy way to explain a complex technical matter to humans in the show and the audience at home?
Did you complain about that "Doctor's Daughter"?
How about the Tardis being called the Doctor's "Wife"? Did you complain about bad writing or anything else over that "error"?
Have you demanded to see the Doctor's Doctrate - cos might be a real title either.
Seriously - you're getting annoyed that a fictitious alien thing doesn't match your idea of what it should be.
I thought that line and title was changed once Georgia Moffett got the part as a nod/inside joke over the fact she is The 5th Doctor's (Peter Davison's) Daughter
It would have been hilarious to also have her play the Doctor's Wife.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
The Doctor's Daughter/Wife made it clear that the authors knew which daughterly/wifely characteristics the title characters had, and how they came by those characteristics in the first place.
There's no indication that the writers have given any thought to where the moon egg came from, or how closely it should resemble earth eggs, or anything like that. It feels random, like just another typical "throw this in because it sounds cool and impressive and hopefully people won't think about it" that makes up so much modern TV drama.
Doctor Who should be better than that.
Of course, Minky, in future I will remember ...
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
... no, no I think I've got it ...
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
although Davros calls it a "reality bomb" its not really a "reality bomb"
I'll keep trying ...
Exactly. Good drama should slowly draw you into the fictional world, not keep you outside looking in.
And the more strange and bizarre the fictional world is, the more care the writers have to take to make it believable if we're to believe in it. Something as odd as the moon-egg storyline is always going to need a lot of careful work and attention to detail just because it is so odd. The writers can't just wave their hands and say "It's OK because its weird and science fictional and alien and it sounds cool."
Having said that, Star Trek always had a thing for giant space creatures.
So - now you're saying that Davros spoke English and what you heard wasn't the Tardis' best effort at translating the technical name of an alien device.
What do the following have in common...
Fernweh, Papakata, Iktsuarpok, Tingo, Komorebi, Tsundoku, Waldeinsamkeit, Mamihlapinatapei, Backpfeifengesicht and Pochemuchka?
Those are all genuine words from real languages on this planet that can't be directly translates into English - there's many more.
That last one is Russian for "someone who asks too many questions" - oddly enough.
If it's not possible to translate some words from German (which some of those are) into English - which is largely derived from a Germanic root - then why is it so difficult to grasp that whatever the Kaled word was might not have been translatable and "Reality Bomb" was simply the best effort at conveying the concept.
Yeah this was my thought too, fictional worlds rely on metaphor to establish a connection with our world (if there was no connection we wouldn't be watching/reading it, or at least I wouldn't) and the metaphor has to be firm; I can only say how the associations in my head work; I make no claims for anyone else but the idea that when presented with a egg metaphor I should have thought of a Kinder egg (having had to Google them) is ridiculous.
Most people get the idea that an alien "egg" might not be exactly the same as a bird egg. They may find it a bit daft to have any sort of egg-like object in place of the moon - but they accept that Doctor Who is not a documentary and don't try to make an off-the-cuff description fit with some narrow definition.
And it's not a matter of saying "it's a KInder egg". I cited those to prove that the word "egg" is used every day without referring to the ovum of a creature.
Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant details, like the Kinder egg. (After all, we do know exactly why Kinder eggs are called eggs, what egg-like properties they do and don't have, where they come from, what they're for, etc. which makes them totally useless as an analogy for the moon-egg.)
No, let's get back to basics instead...
Do you agree that in general very strange and unusual story elements require more work from the writers to make them believable?
Do you agree that for many people, something like the moon-egg would be a very strange and unusual concept? (Whether or not you personally just happened to find it strange isn't the point.)