Rate and Discuss 6.8: Let's Kill Hitler (!)

[Perry Vale]

I'm sorry, Steve (Perry) - but those of us who didn't like the episode have just as much right to come on here and say how we feel about it. There's nothing forcing us to superficially praise the latest episodes to high heavens, if we didn't like them.

And nowhere did I suggest you should.

I was talking more generally, and not 'picking on' anyone in particular. And of course I agree in general about everyone's right to their opinion, but when I see 1/10 marks being given I have to question things.

From the passionate views given by those who didn't like it, it reminds me of how passionately I disliked the Tennant era. But however much I didn't like that era, I would never have scored any of them quite so low, I would always find some things to like in any of them, be it performance, a funny gag, or whatever.

Sorry if I've offended, I knew I should have probably stayed quiet, and it may have been my way of expressing my disappointment at a similar reaction on the thread for this episode on Roobarbs, where similarly (imo) the amount written by those disliking it was very disproportionate to the actual voting results.

[Anthony Williams]

And nowhere did I suggest you should.

I was talking more generally, and not 'picking on' anyone in particular. And of course I agree in general about everyone's right to their opinion, but when I see 1/10 marks being given I have to question things.

From the passionate views given by those who didn't like it, it reminds me of how passionately I disliked the Tennant era. But however much I didn't like that era, I would never have scored any of them quite so low, I would always find some things to like in any of them, be it performance, a funny gag, or whatever.

Sorry if I've offended, I knew I should have probably stayed quiet, and it may have been my way of expressing my disappointment at a similar reaction on the thread for this episode on Roobarbs, where similarly (imo) the amount written by those disliking it was very disproportionate to the actual voting results.

Fair play, Steve

Frankly, I'd rather see what you have to say - although I may disagree with others' opinions, I find it very interesting to read what each and every person on PS has to say. And it would seem that the majority on here really liked/enjoyed the episode.

I voted it 2/10 - because, as you say - there's always at least one redeeming feature. In this case, it looked bloody gorgeous. And people who praise Rory's character are dead on. For me, only one episode of the post-2005 series received a mark that low before (Midnight), and I'm hopefull

It's the differences in opinion that make it interesting! And for the record, I wasn't offended by your remarks

[Zbigniev Hamson]

To be fair, the flashbacks wernt to remind us, they were to show us things we didnt see before, like the Doctor switching the gun for the banana. So to say they are underestimating the audiences ability to remember what just happened misses the point entirely.

Si.

Apart from the replay of the kiss, which was just a replay of the kiss. Which we just saw. In full.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Because they then specifically state that she's a very high on the list "catch", and getting her would be a coup, put them all in line for "promotion" if you like.

Hmm, so breaking the fundamental rule of your organisation, and completely screwing with established causality into the bargain, gets you a promotion does it? Well fair enough, but that's essentially the same as saying that it's because the organisation is massively illogical, which is what I said.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Here's a thought I just had: Who is in the spacesuit that shoots the Doctor? All the signs up until now seemed to show that it would be the young Melody Pond. That now seems kind of unlikely, as she would have done that in before she poisoned him. Surely she would have remembered she'd already killed him.

I've always thought all along that it's too obvious that it would be her. Mind you, that doesn't mean it won't be.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

I was talking more generally, and not 'picking on' anyone in particular. And of course I agree in general about everyone's right to their opinion, but when I see 1/10 marks being given I have to question things.

Even though you wish you'd given it a 10... hmm.

(And yes, sorry for all the posts in a row)

[Rob McCow]

Apart from the replay of the kiss, which was just a replay of the kiss. Which we just saw. In full.

That was funny! I know humour is subjective, but it was funny!

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Come on someone's got to vote 5! Then we can have the full set.

[Darren]

and we can enjoy a good chiller from Gatiss!

Oh god it's a Mark Gatiss script!!

[Rob McCow]

If you didn't like the episode, read this: http://www.shropshirestar.com/entert...ler-review/?mh

And if you did like it, then read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ne-review.html

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Hungggrrrrryyyyy!

[FlyingBeastie]

Oh, speaking of timestreams and such- what was their problem with taking him out in 1938? That made absolutely no sense, when they were like, "Oh, we're too early!"

1. For such a futuristic operation that has so much information, did you guys not have a watch on you to double check you were in the right period?

2. What does it matter what time you're taking him out in? You're not taking him out naturally period, so what does it matter what time you do it?

[FlyingBeastie]

I'm sorry, Steve (Perry) - but those of us who didn't like the episode have just as much right to come on here and say how we feel about it. There's nothing forcing us to superficially praise the latest episodes to high heavens, if we didn't like them.

You complained about the "low standard" of the previous four years - surely that's the same thing as myself, Beastie, Zbigniev et al. complaining about the current run? There are many people, myself included, who enjoyed a lot of the episodes put out in RTD's tenure. Sure, his era had its low-points, too. What era didn't (well, aside from the 7th Doctor's, IMO - but there are plenty of people who'll disagree with me on that!)

It's the difference of opinion that makes it interesting

One thing I agree with is something that Steve (McCow) said - visually, these latest episodes are stunning. I may not like the plots or the story-arc, but these are definitely looking like films. Absolutely gorgeous!

Agree on everything but the cinematography. While the HD and quality is nice, there are so many close ups and closed in shots so it all looks featureless. It also felt like the episode took place in the same two sets.

Usually that's the case anyway, but they always made it feel like it wasn't.

Also, this episode was pretty low standard stuff in terms of plot and writing. Again, we have someone die and brought back to life and feel nothing about it. I didn't get that strong sense of stakes or motivation on the parts of River, Amy, and Rory who are really the core here- I mean we cut from River ready to bounce on out of there in one scene, and come back to her sitting in the chair.

What was she doing exactly? What was she waiting for? There wasn't much there to drive her to do what she ended up doing.

Also, it cheapens the ending of "Library". Before, when we found out she's part Timelord, it made sense for her to compare herself to The Doctor in that they couldn't regenerate from the energy surge. But now she literally has no regenerations left I'm just left like, "Well... then what was the point of making her part timelord... at all?"

Seriously... what did that tidbit add to the story?

[Dirk Gently]

7/10 for me. Reasonable story, nice backdrop to TARDIS crew events, Rory grows a pair, Hitler needs to come out of the closet, arc story lines being tied up & fun as well.

Looking forward to next weeks.






(Deliberately not getting involved in who though it was brilliant/crap, life's too short.)

[Darren]

(Deliberately not getting involved in who though it was brilliant/crap, life's too short.)

You're no fun.

[Dirk Gently]

I know, I'm the kind of boring sod who likes all Doctor Who...well nearly all.

[J.R. Southall]

Oh, speaking of timestreams and such- what was their problem with taking him out in 1938? That made absolutely no sense, when they were like, "Oh, we're too early!"

1. For such a futuristic operation that has so much information, did you guys not have a watch on you to double check you were in the right period?

2. What does it matter what time you're taking him out in? You're not taking him out naturally period, so what does it matter what time you do it?

They did explain, of course, that they don't simply turn up and execute people. They take people out of their timestream as close as possible to the end of their life, so the timestream isn't adversely affected and a proportionate punishment ("Give 'em hell!") can be meted out.

[J.R. Southall]

Incidentally, I thoroughly enjoyed that.

(Full review here: http://tinyurl.com/3zvduem)

Suffice it to say, I don't care that Doctor Who is still not quite making sense. It's now so much fun it doesn't matter.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

They did explain, of course, that they don't simply turn up and execute people. They take people out of their timestream as close as possible to the end of their life, so the timestream isn't adversely affected and a proportionate punishment ("Give 'em hell!") can be meted out.

Apart from when it's River Song

[Jason Thompson]

2. What does it matter what time you're taking him out in? You're not taking him out naturally period, so what does it matter what time you do it?

I think pulling Hitler out of the timestream in 1938 might just have some pretty drastic consequences for causality, don't you? On the other hand, pulling him out of the bunker in 1945 would make no difference whatsoever.

Agree with your first point though. How did they only just realise they were too early? Was the fact that Berlin wasn't deserted and in ruins with the sound of shelling in the distance or Russian troops surging through the street, but the Fuhrer was sitting comfortably in his office instead, not a clue that they were a bit early?

[Jason Thompson]

Also, it cheapens the ending of "Library". Before, when we found out she's part Timelord, it made sense for her to compare herself to The Doctor in that they couldn't regenerate from the energy surge.

Why? How did you get there? It doesn't matter whether or not she was part Time Lord. The ending of Library is simple. She sacrificed herself to save the Doctor, and she knew he couldn't regenerate. How does now knowing she once had the ability to regenerate make that ending 'cheaper'?

[Anthony Williams]

Why? How did you get there? It doesn't matter whether or not she was part Time Lord. The ending of Library is simple. She sacrificed herself to save the Doctor, and she knew he couldn't regenerate. How does now knowing she once had the ability to regenerate make that ending 'cheaper'?

I think what Ms Beastie was trying to say is - what was the point? Why make her part-Time Lord? After A Good Man Goes to War, we were left with the impression that she had given up something more significant than just her life for the Doctor at the end of Forest of the Dead. But now, we find out that she didn't. She wouldn't have regenerated anyway.

So, there wasn't a huge amount of point in making her part-Time Lord.

[Awesome Wells]

After A Good Man Goes to War, we were left with the impression that she had given up something more significant than just her life for the Doctor at the end of Forest of the Dead. But now, we find out that she didn't. She wouldn't have regenerated anyway.

So, there wasn't a huge amount of point in making her part-Time Lord.

Were we? I don't remember that at all. But anyway, River now has given up something more significant than just her life. She's given him *all* her lives (well, apart from the first two, anyway). That's pretty significant. But like I say, I can't remember the relevant moment in A Good Man Goes To War, so maybe this doesn't fit.

[Andrew Curnow]

I think that element may or may not be 'justified' by the time we get to the end of this arc*** - but I think I see what FB means. Not as regards the Library conclusion, more 'why bother' with making River semi-Timelordy, in that she can regenerate, if pretty much first chance she gets she gives that up. I don't mean from a character point of view, but from a story point of view - SO FAR*** the only point of it is to (a) give a 'cool' cliffhanger at the end of Day of the Moon, and (b) to save the Doctor at the end of LKH, since it was clear there was no conventional cure to the poison.

Also, as I'm writing this, it occurs to me: I'm sure Madame Kovarian (sp?) suggested that the reason River/Melody would be a perfect weapon against the Doctor is because she was human+timelord. But actually, if in LKH Melody really was trying to kill him with the lipstick (and everything would suggest she was) then did she really need to be that unique a being? She's hardly the first person to get into the TARDIS uninvited, is she, and nowadays it seems almost anybody can get close enough to kiss the Doctor...






***I just thought I'd reiterate that I'm not actually moaning about this myself, but probably will if we get to the end of River's story and it turns out that making her Timelordy was pretty much to no purpose. See, I don't complain about everything!

[Awesome Wells]

Good point(s), Andrew ... but, of course, there's more to being a Time Lord than regeneration. River's link with the Tardis and uniquely aggravating temperament (thanks Brig) are equally Lordy.