S10.E05: Oxygen

[Llywela]

5 minutes ago, smorbie said:

Not during the shows, but my understanding is that the shows are bookended by them.

No. There are no commercials on the BBC, other than trailers for the BBC's own shows/stations. The BBC does not sell airtime for advertising. It is funded by the licence fee and programme sales, and is a non-profit organisation.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Llywela

[smorbie]

1 hour ago, Llywela said:

licence fee and programme sales

capitalism 

[Llywela]

Not for profit. Just let it go, dude. Doctor Who does not have a huge hate-on for capitalism. It just happened to tell a story this week about what might happen if capitalism were taken to extremes in a space age. That's what science fiction does: takes a familiar concept and exaggerates it to the nth degree to create exciting stories - here, to underline the body horror of the suits and facilitate a few corny jokes. That's all.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Llywela

[that one guy]

Doctor Who has a history of antipathy to capitalism, and is produced and run by a socialist state-run organization in the BBC. This also has a history of being controversial - the show aired some die-hard anti-Thatcher stuff in the 80s, which reflected the views of the producers. This may have been one of the factors that led to the show's decline and cancellation - I imagine some of the audience really liked those episodes' political bent, and others were alienated. You can question whether the show should be taking this position now, but in-universe, it's in character for the Doctor, who's from a very different civilization and has often frowned on capitalism because he doesn't approve of the commodification of human labor.

I agree - I have avoided being an employee at private sector for-profit firms for most of my like, because why should I work and the owners/investors accrue the profit resulting from my labor? I don't mind paying taxes but I don't like being exploited for profit. Other people feel the opposite, and will argue that employment arrangements are private and consensual. But that underplays the power disparity between a corporation and a working stiff. This episode is a case in point - making workers pay for oxygen is a sendup of the "company store" situation, where mining companies mandated that workers buy their own safety equipment, etc, and sold it to them at an exorbitant profit form a store they owned. Some companies paid their employees in "scrip," essentially private currency only good at the company store, and then obviously overcharged for everything. Since the situation on the show is a send up of the way corporations have actually behaved when allowed to, I thought it was spot-on satire.  There's no contradiction between benefitting from or participating in something and also critiquing it. Hell, I'll bet many people watched this episode live on BBC America through a cable subscription, and bitch incessantly about how terrible their cable company is. And they'd be right- cable companies are terrible. I cancelled cable and watch the show on Amazon, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize Amazon if their business practices are harmful. And they probably are. But it's so much cheaper to buy my shows from them than it was to pay for cable that I don't even want to know . . .

[HauntedBathroom]

Another cracking episode of Who. Philip Sandifer must have adored this episode.

[AudienceofOne]

On 20/05/2017 at 0:36 AM, that one guy said:

Doctor Who has a history of antipathy to capitalism, and is produced and run by a socialist state-run organization in the BBC. This also has a history of being controversial - the show aired some die-hard anti-Thatcher stuff in the 80s, which reflected the views of the producers. This may have been one of the factors that led to the show's decline and cancellation - I imagine some of the audience really liked those episodes' political bent, and others were alienated. You can question whether the show should be taking this position now, but in-universe, it's in character for the Doctor, who's from a very different civilization and has often frowned on capitalism because he doesn't approve of the commodification of human labor.

I agree - I have avoided being an employee at private sector for-profit firms for most of my like, because why should I work and the owners/investors accrue the profit resulting from my labor? I don't mind paying taxes but I don't like being exploited for profit. Other people feel the opposite, and will argue that employment arrangements are private and consensual. But that underplays the power disparity between a corporation and a working stiff. This episode is a case in point - making workers pay for oxygen is a sendup of the "company store" situation, where mining companies mandated that workers buy their own safety equipment, etc, and sold it to them at an exorbitant profit form a store they owned. Some companies paid their employees in "scrip," essentially private currency only good at the company store, and then obviously overcharged for everything. Since the situation on the show is a send up of the way corporations have actually behaved when allowed to, I thought it was spot-on satire.  There's no contradiction between benefitting from or participating in something and also critiquing it. Hell, I'll bet many people watched this episode live on BBC America through a cable subscription, and bitch incessantly about how terrible their cable company is. And they'd be right- cable companies are terrible. I cancelled cable and watch the show on Amazon, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't criticize Amazon if their business practices are harmful. And they probably are. But it's so much cheaper to buy my shows from them than it was to pay for cable that I don't even want to know . . .

While I don't agree with all of us (did you really call the BBC socialist??) I do agree that there was nothing particularly groundbreaking or new in their representation of corporatism. It was hardly even an extreme representation of corporatism as it exists today. Corporations regularly kill their employees for profits - or did the whole asbestosis, black lung, mining and construction safety issues pass everybody by. Miners die on a daily basis because the companies decide the safety protocols required are too expensive. Exxon knew that climate change would destroy entire habitats and negatively impact the world's ecosystem, probably killing millions, years ago but deliberately covered it up so they could keep making money off exactly that.

This is hardly radical or revolutionary concepts.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

The Writer Breathing Life Into Doctor Who

To run out of air is human; Jamie Mathieson gives us something divine.

[John Potts]

13 hours ago, AudienceofOne said:

While I don't agree with all of us (did you really call the BBC socialist??) I do agree that there was nothing particularly groundbreaking or new in their representation of corporatism.

I know people who think BBC stands for "Bolsheviks Broadcasting Communism" (admittedly, members of the Conservative Party) and it is funded from taxation*. If you ask the population as a whole, they generally think the BBC is mildly conservative (certainly, there have been more complaints from the left than the right about the current election coverage) but there is certainly plenty of episodes of Who attacking capitalism (The Happiness Patrol contained a fairly blatant parody of Margaret Thatcher - which probably didn't help when it came to getting cancelled in the 80s) [/politics].

* Well, it's funded (mainly) by the license fee, but that's essentially a universal tax.

[pootlus]

I must be really dumb, but the thing that struck me most during this episode was "Isn't Nardole a robot? Why does he need oxygen?". The effects on Bill as she was exposed to vacuum were a little hyperbolic too. In reality (assuming she followed advice and didn't hold her breath), she would just pass out.

I handwaved that though, and really enjoyed the rest. Good supporting cast, and I really felt for Bill when she thought she was going to die. Nardole, Bill and the Doctor are working really well together. More of this please!

[Llywela]

1 minute ago, pootlus said:

I must be really dumb, but the thing that struck me most during this episode was "Isn't Nardole a robot? Why does he need oxygen?". The effects on Bill as she was exposed to vacuum were a little hyperbolic too. In reality (assuming she followed advice and didn't hold her breath), she would just pass out.

They were much the same effects used by Marvel in the two Guardians of the Galaxy films when characters were exposed to vacuum.

[that one guy]

On 5/20/2017 at 5:33 PM, AudienceofOne said:

(did you really call the BBC socialist??)

From Wikipedia: 

Quote

The BBC is established under a Royal Charter[9] and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.[10] Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee[11] which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.[12] The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,[13] and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK.

"Socialist" isn't actually a swear word. The BBC is publicly owned and operated as a state enterprise at public expense and for public benefit, as opposed to being a private corporation operated to make a profit for its owners or shareholders. Both the UK and US are mixed economies, with both capitalist elements (Virgin Media, Apple Computer) and socialist elements (the BBC, the VA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Park Service etc.). When I referred to it as socialist, I was referring to its status as a state-owned enterprise, not referring to any perceived editorial slant on the part of its broadcast news division. 

[AudienceofOne]

5 hours ago, that one guy said:

From Wikipedia: 

"Socialist" isn't actually a swear word. The BBC is publicly owned and operated as a state enterprise at public expense and for public benefit, as opposed to being a private corporation operated to make a profit for its owners or shareholders. Both the UK and US are mixed economies, with both capitalist elements (Virgin Media, Apple Computer) and socialist elements (the BBC, the VA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Park Service etc.). When I referred to it as socialist, I was referring to its status as a state-owned enterprise, not referring to any perceived editorial slant on the part of its broadcast news division. 

Literally not what socialism is. State funded does not equal socialism. In fact, the kind of state funding Britain does was specifically designed to combat communism and fascism because that extremism is caused by social inequality. Calling state infrastructure ' socialism' is ahistorical and dangerous. Socialism is where the workers own the means of production. Communism is where the state completely directs the economy. Fascism is where corporations run the economy and ,the state retains authoritarian control using nationalism. These descriptions are extremely simplistic. Either way, state funded infrastructure is none of those things.

[wayne67]

Has anyone seen the BBC's latest user terms?

This one is of particular interest. (section 9)

"If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour. 16 Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour. "

Personally it seems the BBC is part of the nanny state... If you don't behave they'll tell on you. 

I'm glad I'm not in England. Apparently the publicly owned enterprise is in favor of doxxing. 

Back on topic. Was anyone else kind of sad that the blue guy died ? 

[mahree]

On 5/14/2017 at 7:46 AM, John Potts said:

"Sloppy programming causes the system to turn murderous" plot. But what exactly was the space station there for? If it's a tourist attraction, then it's not going to be very profitable to kill your customers: if it's some scientific station, then why would you charge the people who are working under threat of death if their credit runs out and if it's something else, then... you might have mentioned what.

As I understood it, the programming wasn't sloppy at all - the suits were doing exactly what they were programmed to do - the miners had become, in their own words, "inefficient," so the suits were destroying them to make room for their (presumable more efficient) replacements (the people who were on the ship heading for them that wasn't a replacement because it left before the distress signal was sent.  The space station was a mine.  The miners had not been producing recently, so the "head office" had somehow come to the conclusion that they had become inefficient (and thus unprofitable), triggering the suits' programming.  They are being charged for air in the same manner as we would be expected to pay for food in a company cafeteria; at least that's how I rationalized it.

[John Potts]

Except there's nothing to mine in space - it's pretty notorious for containing nothing at all (OK, even a vacuum will contain some stuff, like stray Hydrogen atoms, but essentially nothing). They might have been mining asteroids, I suppose, but had abandoned the mining given the rampaging zombies.

I get that we're meant to accept that the workers were being killed off due to the value of their labour falling below the amount the were producing: I just find it more plausible that it's a programming error saying, "cut off unproductive lines" without realising that the station AI would interpret that to include the people on the station - I simply find it far easier to believe in cock ups rather than conspiracies.

[Llywela]

They were mining an asteroid - I think we see it in the opening scene, the station is positioned over it.

I agree though that the concept is fatally flawed and needn't have been.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Llywela

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, John Potts said:

I just find it more plausible that it's a programming error saying, "cut off unproductive lines" without realising that the station AI would interpret that to include the people on the station - I simply find it far easier to believe in cock ups rather than conspiracies.

That does make more sense to me. I could see HQ not giving it much thought when they said to cut off unproductive lines, then, when they realized what was happening, decided it was cheaper to replace the workers than to try to save them.

[call me ishmael]

7 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That does make more sense to me. I could see HQ not giving it much thought when they said to cut off unproductive lines, then, when they realized what was happening, decided it was cheaper to replace the workers than to try to save them.

The problem with that is that they sent the new workers out before they got the distress signal.  How would they know they had made a mistake if they didn't decide to get rid of the workers?

[Llywela]

6 hours ago, call me ishmael said:

The problem with that is that they sent the new workers out before they got the distress signal.  How would they know they had made a mistake if they didn't decide to get rid of the workers?

I thought it was an automatic subroutine of the suits that kicked in as soon as productivity dropped, triggering the sending of the new workers into the bargain - the distress signal was never received by head office, only the Doctor heard that.

As with so many Doctor Who plots, it really is best not to poke at it too much or it all falls apart!

[AudienceofOne]

10 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I thought it was an automatic subroutine of the suits that kicked in as soon as productivity dropped, triggering the sending of the new workers into the bargain - the distress signal was never received by head office, only the Doctor heard that.

As with so many Doctor Who plots, it really is best not to poke at it too much or it all falls apart!

No, it was a deliberate decision by the company since the suits could continue working autonomically without the biological components.

It was the workers who sent the distress signal.

[Llywela]

1 hour ago, AudienceofOne said:

No, it was a deliberate decision by the company since the suits could continue working autonomically without the biological components.

It was the workers who sent the distress signal.

Yes, I know it was the workers who sent the distress signal. I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that the suits killing the occupants was an automatic subroutine, which is why the new workers were sent out independent of the distress signal, which the company probably never received and wouldn't have responded to anyway - I was responding to call me ishamael's query about the new workers being sent out before the distress signal was received. The two had no connection, was my point. Productivity dropped, and the subroutine kicked in - prompting both the slaughter of the unproductive workers and the issue of replacements. The distress signal was entirely separate, it came from the surviving workers (their being off-network at the time of the cull being entirely unanticipated, apparently) and had nothing to do with the company's policy or actions, and in fact was probably not even received by anyone but the Doctor.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Llywela

[call me ishmael]

9 hours ago, Llywela said:

Yes, I know it was the workers who sent the distress signal. I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that the suits killing the occupants was an automatic subroutine, which is why the new workers were sent out independent of the distress signal, which the company probably never received and wouldn't have responded to anyway - I was responding to call me ishamael's query about the new workers being sent out before the distress signal was received. The two had no connection, was my point. Productivity dropped, and the subroutine kicked in - prompting both the slaughter of the unproductive workers and the issue of replacements. The distress signal was entirely separate, it came from the surviving workers (their being off-network at the time of the cull being entirely unanticipated, apparently) and had nothing to do with the company's policy or actions, and in fact was probably not even received by anyone but the Doctor.

But if that was the case then it would suggest that the company intended unproductive workers to be killed wouldn't it?  They must have known about the subroutine if they had it in the suits i think.  Although as you say it is probably one of those things where we are giving it more thought than the writers did!

[Llywela]

12 hours ago, call me ishmael said:

But if that was the case then it would suggest that the company intended unproductive workers to be killed wouldn't it?  They must have known about the subroutine if they had it in the suits i think.  Although as you say it is probably one of those things where we are giving it more thought than the writers did!

I think the episode was very clear that the company absolutely did intend for unproductive workers to be killed, yes, it was very deliberate company policy.

Probably best to take that fact at face value rather than attempt to make sense of the world-building.

[call me ishmael]

4 minutes ago, Llywela said:

I think the episode was very clear that the company absolutely did intend for unproductive workers to be killed, yes, it was very deliberate company policy.

Probably best to take that fact at face value rather than attempt to make sense of the world-building.

That was my read on it as well.  But several others upthread thought it was a malfunction.