Rate and Discuss: The Beast Below

[Perry Vale]

Damn you all! You've got me talking in this thread again when I said I wouldn't!

I'm glad you did, you summed up the way I saw it too, thanks.

The adults are a different story though

Yes, I was wondering about that too. I think Moffat's intention, which maybe wasn't gotten across, is that (virtually) no-one protests. That's part of the point of it's characterisation of it's society/government.

It's a bit like that Day Today sketch with Steve Coogan at the swimming pool.....

"The year 3245....no-one died"

"The year 3246....no-one died"

"The year 3247....no-one died"

"The year 3248....someone died"

[Paul Monk]

I'm glad you did, you summed up the way I saw it too, thanks.

You're welcome.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Surely the point of a Police state is that no-one dares openly protest.

Actually it reminds too much of the blue pill/red pill dilemma in the Matrix.

[Paul Monk]

Thats the beauty of it though. Its not a police state. The population are told the truth and then choose to forget. Its democracy at work!

[Antony Cox]

I only got to watch this last night as we were still outside mixing & pouring concrete until 8.30 on Saturday night, but that's another story...

A very enjoyable episode indeed.

As always, it appears that there were a lot of plot holes but I don't usually notice them so I am blissfully unaware!

To continue my 'The 11th Doctor is too young' musings, having watched The Beast Below, I'm enjoying Smith's portrayal immensely now. Although every Dcotor has been eccentric, his eccentricity is all his own and not influenced by anything that's gone before. And I just like the way he speaks - his diction is remarkably clear. My only slight criticism is that he does chatter away to himself very quickly when he's learning or discovering something, which is a bit too reminiscent of the 10th Doctor's know-all mutterings, but I suppose Tom tended to do that too and it doesn't bother me!

The only problem I'm still having is that as much as all of the above is true, every time I hear someone call him 'Doctor', I still laugh to myself and think " You can't be the Doctor, you're just too young!"

I suppose (and hope) I'll get over it eventually!

7/10 for me.

[Jonno]

After her bad start with the food spitting out scene last week, Mum now states that she was a bit better inclined to the show this week.

My parents are coming over for their annual visit this weekend and it looks like they're in for a corker of an episode - set at around the time they were born! We miay get to see the following episode together before they leave if we can fit it in!

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I watched it again and was reminded how bizarre the voice/accent belonging to the toothy girl on the video in the pre-credits sequence is. Maybe she's the director's daughter or something?

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Thats the beauty of it though. Its not a police state. The population are told the truth and then choose to forget. Its democracy at work!

Erm. Can you check your definition of democracy? I'm sure anyone who chooses NOT to vote for Gordon Brown in May will not be fed to the Star Whale.

It would get over the problem of overcrowding in the UK in one fell swoop though.

It reminds me a bit of a quote about Napoleon calling for an election to vote him in as supreme leader. At a polling station the army informed the populace "You are free to vote as you wish. But I warn you, anyone who does not vote for Napoleon will be shot!".

[Lissa]

The difference is that the population ARE given a free choice because they don't know something hideous will happen if they don't vote to forget. They all vote to forget based on the issues presented to them in the film. You could argue that the film is propaganda but only if you want to argue whether the cold, hard truth can be called propaganda. So it is a genuine democracy - people vote freely and without knowing the consequences of their actions. Like New Labour.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

[Take's notes] So you can kill people who vote for the opposition, and not be considered a Police state ... cool!

[Paul Monk]

Thank you Lissa. Exactly what I was trying to say.

So you can kill people who vote for the opposition, and not be considered a Police state ... cool!

People of New Zealand beware. If you see Michael Talks as a parliamentary candidate in your next election...don't vote for him!

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I work in the department for Unemployment. And right next to them is the Ministry of Food. Which is a radical solution ... and perhaps why NZ unemployment is so low. Don't tell the Tories!!!

They do some really nice Soylent Burgers there. Yum!

[Jason Thompson]

The difference is that the population ARE given a free choice because they don't know something hideous will happen if they don't vote to forget.

But surely that was implied in the intorduction to the film? The man on the video said something like 'after you have seen the film you can choose to forget or you can choose to protest, but be warned that if just 1% of the population protest the program will be terminated, with consequences for all of us'. That sounds like a warning even before the film is presented!

And assuming that the film tells the story of the starship being driven by the Star Whale, it is reasonable to assume that either the film explicitly mentions, or that the viewers can work out, that freeing the whale (terminating the program) is going to be disastrous since it is an integral part of the ship.

So how is it a free democratic vote if you threaten them that voting one way might just lead to the destruction of everything?

[Paul Monk]

So how is it a free democratic vote if you threaten them that voting one way might just lead to the destruction of everything?

I'm not sure that its a threat as such though is it? Its someone warning that there are consequences to your decision. Its the same as saying that not voting to have ID cards will have consequences for everyone because it will prevent terrorists attacks. Its a loaded statement to make you think a certain way but I don't think its a threat.

[Rob McCow]

Surely that makes it more of a free vote. The consequences of your actions are clearly explained and you can make a choice based on a full set of facts. And the 'Protest' vote won't actually destroy Spaceship England.

Although it's a free vote in that respect, it's also completely worthless because anyone who protests is removed from the system. So there would never be a popular movement to protest.

[Paul Monk]

if just 1% of the population protest the program will be terminated

And thats the key phrase. It suggests that you could file a protest vote and be fine, but if too many people protest then the programme is terminated. You could then still press the protest button knowing full well what it could lead to.

Although it's a free vote in that respect, it's also completely worthless because anyone who protests is removed from the system. So there would never be a popular movement to protest.

True.

[Jason Thompson]

Its the same as saying that not voting to have ID cards will have consequences for everyone because it will prevent terrorists attacks.

It's not the same though, because there is no opposing view put forward. Having ISD cards won't put off terrorists, any more than passport control stops aircraft hijackers: they just follow the appropriate channels and get a ticket, then hijack the plane. It also sets up a false dichotomy, in that you are given the choice to forget and carry on as if nothing is wrong or else risk destroying everything. No possibility for retaining the knowledge without risk to everyone else, no possibility to decide instead to try to find another alternative. Amy figures it all out in minutes, but no-one in the entire UK has considered alternatives beyond the torture of the whale?

[Jason Thompson]

And the 'Protest' vote won't actually destroy Spaceship England.

But that is clearly implied, and explicitly stated in the Queen's own message. The alternative to forgetting is voting to release the whale, which at least they seem to believe will cause the spaceship to disintegrate if it is actually implemented.

1% isn't ahuge portion, and if you didn't know how many people had voted to protest before you went in, would you risk being the one to bring the whole thing crashing down?

[Rob McCow]

But that is clearly implied, and explicitly stated in the Queen's own message.

The Queen's vote is different. She can 'Abdicate' and instantly set the whale free, whereas the population at large can only 'Protest', which I don't think would have the same effect.

[Si Hunt]

I thought Sophie Okenado's hair was rather nice.

Si.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

So how is it a free democratic vote if you threaten them that voting one way might just lead to the destruction of everything?

It's a perfectly free and democratic vote. The destruction of everything is simply a direct physical consequence of what they are voting for, and if people choose to vote not to die then that's just understandable.

Of course, feeding dissenters to a whale without warning and then covering it up is where the police state comes in. But the vote as described to them is about as democratic as you can get. "Do you want to die, yes or no? If you vote yes, you die. If you vote no, you don't die. And no-one puts pressure on you to vote either way." Sounds fair to me.

Edit: ...although yes, the memory-wiping aspect of voting no, without being given a choice to remember, isn't very democratic.

[matthewsch]

The memory-wiping aspect of voting no, without being given a choice to remember, isn't very democratic.

Technically, they are given a choice to remember, they just don't know that that choice results in them becoming space whale food.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Yes but they can only remember if they also protest. They can't choose to not protest, but still retain their memory.

[Jason Thompson]

Exactly. Setting up two choices and not providing others is hardly free and democratic. In a true democratic society you always have the choice not to vote...

[WhiteCrowNZ]

It's possible that they're getting rid of those who object to prevent them from voting in the next election, hence always keeping those who object below 1%.

Anyone who objected would not be eligible to vote again in 5 years ... cos they'd be eaten. You would also think people would cotton on that some people who go to the voting booth don't return. Hence when the Government says there are repercussions for objecting, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what you have to do in the voting booth to not return from it!

The kind of cruel irony is that the star whale is then eating the only people who show any empathy or concern towards it.