Strictly speaking - it's thrice - Victory, Pandorica and Big Bang. The last two were in a two-parter but the role played by the Dalek was fairly different in each.
Strictly speaking it would be 4....
..... Dont forget the Eleventh Hour :D
I totally agree. I think Moffat is just making it up as he goes along now. He has absolutely milked this Melody/River story arc. I am really tired of it now. The Doctor seems to have taken a back seat. The show is callled 'Doctor Who' and not 'River Song'. I'm surprised we have not seen any Daleks yet. In earlier seasons Moffat was fond of putting the Daleks in every other episode.
Yes yes yes yes. I've just said something very similar on another forum here, and it wasn't well received. I love River, so why freaking milk her character to death? Even when she's not on screen her presence is felt. Note: characters do not work as story arcs for two seasons running. Or one even.
Strictly speaking - it's thrice - Victory, Pandorica and Big Bang. The last two were in a two-parter but the role played by the Dalek was fairly different in each.
I always count the two parters as a single story. You wouldn't say the Daleks appeared six times in season 12...
I understood everything that happened during LKH, but I am confused to some extent. I feel that I have been bombarded with too many revelations; Mels is River/Melody, River brought up to kill the doctor, silence is not a species but a faith, river was the little girl in the space suit, river can no longer regenerate, doctors death is a fixed point in time and must happen etc. Yes, I know it is part of the story arc, but for me there is too many issues going on and everything feels disjointed. Does anyone else feel the same??
Definitely. Not the best wpisode really for revelations. And not the best setting either. Let's Kill Hitler should have seen Hitler in more scenes. Why put a central evil character like that if you're only going to use him for 5 minutes? This arc is getting more and more confusing by the second. Even the Daily Mirror review of the episode said as much. It seems Steven Moffat has forgotten the golden rule about Doctor Who, that Russell had when he was show runner. If you're going to write a story, write it as if it was the first time someone new is going to tune in to it. He hasn't done that since he took over. And yes it does matter.
Yes, quite frankly. After having seen it for the umpteenth time I still find the plot confusing and irrelevant. Moffat you are well past your prime and need to be replaced by a better writer. Pronto!
I think the title refers to the paradoxical thought experiment as opposed to being a drama about someone trying to kill Hitler.
In a nutshell: you decide to kill Hitler, so you go back in time and kill him. However, because he's dead, it means that your future self would never have gone back in time to kill him, because he was already dead, so therefore you'd never set off to do it in the first place, meaning that he'd be alive.
I thought the writing was a bit ropey - quite frankly I'm pig sick of River Song and her gung-ho approach. Yes, we get it, she's a Spice Girl, now can we have a story about the Doctor please.
No, Let's Kill Hitler was definitely not a Hideous Pile of Crap.
You may not have liked it, but it definitely does not deserve to be called a Hideous Pile of Crap. Just look at the poll results on the main thread.
Definitely. Not the best wpisode really for revelations. And not the best setting either. Let's Kill Hitler should have seen Hitler in more scenes. Why put a central evil character like that if you're only going to use him for 5 minutes? This arc is getting more and more confusing by the second. Even the Daily Mirror review of the episode said as much.
Since the Daily Mirror is hardly the last bastion of intellectuallism I don't think the opinions of their resident hacks are really a yardstick worth using to measure the show's comprehensibility.
It seems Steven Moffat has forgotten the golden rule about Doctor Who, that Russell had when he was show runner.
What golden rule? Whose golden rule? Russell's? Russell isn't in charge anymore. New showrunner, new rules.
If you're going to write a story, write it as if it was the first time someone new is going to tune in to it. He hasn't done that since he took over. And yes it does matter.
Because if you are constantly worrying about new viewers, you can never progress. That may be acceptable for some regular viewers, but for others, not so much.
Whilst I don't think it was a hideous pile of crap, it wasn't very good.
If Moffat wants to focus on the River Song story, then don't even bother trying to have other stories which then get rushed/ignored/demoted.
The only good episode this year was The Doctor's Wife, and guess what? there was no River Song story, just a few hints about what was going to happen in the future.
Moffat is determined to kill someone in every episode, and bring them back to life by some ludicrous quick resolution plucked out of his backside.
Whilst I don't think it was a hideous pile of crap, it wasn't very good.
If Moffat wants to focus on the River Song story, then don't even bother trying to have other stories which then get rushed/ignored/demoted.
The only good episode this year was The Doctor's Wife, and guess what? there was no River Song story, just a few hints about what was going to happen in the future.
Moffat is determined to kill someone in every episode, and bring them back to life by some ludicrous quick resolution plucked out of his backside.
River using up all her regenerations to heal the Doctor was not a ludicrous idea pulled out of Moffat's backside. I don't know for sure, but I heard someone mention that something like this has been mentioned/done before in a Classic episode.
River using up all her regenerations to heal the Doctor was not a ludicrous idea pulled out of Moffat's backside. I don't know for sure, but I heard someone mention that something like this has been mentioned/done before in a Classic episode.
Some people are overly dwelling on the title of the programme. It wasn't called: "We killed Hitler" or "How we killed" etc., it was a plot device, misdirection, a marketing ploy to generate speculation!
I was far, far more annoyed by the "Voyage of the Damned" story that suggested RMS Titanic as a locale and didn't deliver. You just have to roll with these things.
Definitely. Not the best wpisode really for revelations. And not the best setting either. Let's Kill Hitler should have seen Hitler in more scenes.
Why? Just because the name was in the title? If so, I think that you are missing the main points regarding the episode (in that it was most definitely NOT about killing Hitler)
No, Let's Kill Hitler was definitely not a Hideous Pile of Crap.
You may not have liked it, but it definitely does not deserve to be called a Hideous Pile of Crap. Just look at the poll results on the main thread.
Agreed. But in the same vein, "End of Time" is not a hideous pile of crap either as suggested in a different thread.
Some people will always like one episode to another. It's preference. I enjoy End of Time very much, and when I watched "Let's Kill Hitler" on Saturday, I enjoyed that too. There is always ropey writing in Doctor Who. It is a show about a man in a blue box, made from wood that's much bigger in the inside! It will always feature convoluted plots and strange scenarios! It takes a talented writer to come up with adventures and resolutions with the "man in the box" pretext. I think if people describe episodes as "hideous piles of crap" then part of me actually thinks they're not actually DW fans at all.
I have always maintained, thus far, that I prefer the RTD era over the current era. That is in no way a criticism of Moffats writing. Fair play to the bloke for making the stories his own. But, although I don't enjoy his style as much as RTD, I still think Doctor Who is a bloody cracking show and will watch it until it no longer is. That hopefully will be a long time in the future.
Can we please stop these silly "hideous pile of crap" descriptions and just enjoy DW collectively? There will always be eras that some prefer over others, there always has been!
I think the title refers to the paradoxical thought experiment as opposed to being a drama about someone trying to kill Hitler.
In a nutshell: you decide to kill Hitler, so you go back in time and kill him. However, because he's dead, it means that your future self would never have gone back in time to kill him, because he was already dead, so therefore you'd never set off to do it in the first place, meaning that he'd be alive.
I thought the writing was a bit ropey - quite frankly I'm pig sick of River Song and her gung-ho approach. Yes, we get it, she's a Spice Girl, now can we have a story about the Doctor please.
That paradox can be solved by the parallel universe/alternate world theory in which every choice that can be taken, is taken leading to various parallel universes. An example of this would be the episode Turn Left.
This theory would solve the "Kill Hitler" paradox this way:
To begin with there is one universe in which some invents a time machine and goes back to kill Hitler. At the moment of his death the universe splits into two timelines; one in which Hitler was never killed which allowed the time traveller to then go back and kill him and another in which he is dead and history from that point on develops differently
Been away for the weekend and just managed to watch the episode last night.
Fantastic episode with great story and shedding just that extra bit of light on the whole story arc.
Brilliant episode, all summer I've been thinking "Let's kill Hitler" ohh thats a bit extreme, but it turns out to be a very witty title and a roller coaster of a story.
More more more please.
Oh I forgot more coming very soon - can't wait for the rest of the story to unfold.
Yes, quite frankly. After having seen it for the umpteenth time I still find the plot confusing and irrelevant. Moffat you are well past your prime and need to be replaced by a better writer. Pronto!
And if that doesn't cause a skirmish...
Oh and by the way the answer to your question is no just some very clever and witty writing.
I wonder if the episode would have been so light hearted in places if we hadn't had the mid series break. It had the fun of a series opener (which I suppose it is in some respects).
I am a "casual" Dr Who fan...the type of fan the show needs to survive in a primetime slot on a Saturday evening. I have enjoyed the show in the past...but im struggling now.
This show is too complicated. It ran at 100mph but, for me, left me cold. I know the ardent fans will love it but, for me, a casual viewer, I am giving up.
I loved the show under RTD. I enjoyed most of those episodes. But the few decent episodes since SM took over, and Matt Smith, are not enough to keep me watching.
Yeah, I was just agreeing how i thought it would be interesting if that turns out to have been the case. Up to now I suppose we are meant to think he just wanted to get changed without reading too much into it!
Someone - I think in another forum - suggested that he needed the cane to conceal how unsteady he was, and he needed the outfit because it went with the cane (the cane alone would have given the game away). So it makes sense at that level. However, I do suspect more went on than we know. It's too much like the clothing "continuity error" in the Stone Angels episode.
I am a "casual" Dr Who fan...the type of fan the show needs to survive in a primetime slot on a Saturday evening. I have enjoyed the show in the past...but im struggling now.
This show is too complicated. It ran at 100mph but, for me, left me cold. I know the ardent fans will love it but, for me, a casual viewer, I am giving up.
I loved the show under RTD. I enjoyed most of those episodes. But the few decent episodes since SM took over, and Matt Smith, are not enough to keep me watching.
The series link has been removed....
'Casual', pretty much by definition, means 'not really invested in the show'. I don't think those are the kind of
viewers the show needs in order to survive.
Comments
Strictly speaking it would be 4....
..... Dont forget the Eleventh Hour
Yes yes yes yes. I've just said something very similar on another forum here, and it wasn't well received. I love River, so why freaking milk her character to death? Even when she's not on screen her presence is felt. Note: characters do not work as story arcs for two seasons running. Or one even.
I always count the two parters as a single story. You wouldn't say the Daleks appeared six times in season 12...
Definitely. Not the best wpisode really for revelations. And not the best setting either. Let's Kill Hitler should have seen Hitler in more scenes. Why put a central evil character like that if you're only going to use him for 5 minutes? This arc is getting more and more confusing by the second. Even the Daily Mirror review of the episode said as much. It seems Steven Moffat has forgotten the golden rule about Doctor Who, that Russell had when he was show runner. If you're going to write a story, write it as if it was the first time someone new is going to tune in to it. He hasn't done that since he took over. And yes it does matter.
And if that doesn't cause a skirmish...
In a nutshell: you decide to kill Hitler, so you go back in time and kill him. However, because he's dead, it means that your future self would never have gone back in time to kill him, because he was already dead, so therefore you'd never set off to do it in the first place, meaning that he'd be alive.
I thought the writing was a bit ropey - quite frankly I'm pig sick of River Song and her gung-ho approach. Yes, we get it, she's a Spice Girl, now can we have a story about the Doctor please.
You may not have liked it, but it definitely does not deserve to be called a Hideous Pile of Crap. Just look at the poll results on the main thread.
Irrelevant to what? And if you're confused by it, how can you judge its relevance to anything, anyway?
Why delete someone's opinion.
Whilst I don't think it was a hideous pile of crap, it wasn't very good.
If Moffat wants to focus on the River Song story, then don't even bother trying to have other stories which then get rushed/ignored/demoted.
The only good episode this year was The Doctor's Wife, and guess what? there was no River Song story, just a few hints about what was going to happen in the future.
Moffat is determined to kill someone in every episode, and bring them back to life by some ludicrous quick resolution plucked out of his backside.
River using up all her regenerations to heal the Doctor was not a ludicrous idea pulled out of Moffat's backside. I don't know for sure, but I heard someone mention that something like this has been mentioned/done before in a Classic episode.
Mawdryn Undead.
I was far, far more annoyed by the "Voyage of the Damned" story that suggested RMS Titanic as a locale and didn't deliver. You just have to roll with these things.
Moffat is a genius.
Thank you.
Agreed. But in the same vein, "End of Time" is not a hideous pile of crap either as suggested in a different thread.
Some people will always like one episode to another. It's preference. I enjoy End of Time very much, and when I watched "Let's Kill Hitler" on Saturday, I enjoyed that too. There is always ropey writing in Doctor Who. It is a show about a man in a blue box, made from wood that's much bigger in the inside! It will always feature convoluted plots and strange scenarios! It takes a talented writer to come up with adventures and resolutions with the "man in the box" pretext. I think if people describe episodes as "hideous piles of crap" then part of me actually thinks they're not actually DW fans at all.
I have always maintained, thus far, that I prefer the RTD era over the current era. That is in no way a criticism of Moffats writing. Fair play to the bloke for making the stories his own. But, although I don't enjoy his style as much as RTD, I still think Doctor Who is a bloody cracking show and will watch it until it no longer is. That hopefully will be a long time in the future.
Can we please stop these silly "hideous pile of crap" descriptions and just enjoy DW collectively? There will always be eras that some prefer over others, there always has been!
That paradox can be solved by the parallel universe/alternate world theory in which every choice that can be taken, is taken leading to various parallel universes. An example of this would be the episode Turn Left.
This theory would solve the "Kill Hitler" paradox this way:
To begin with there is one universe in which some invents a time machine and goes back to kill Hitler. At the moment of his death the universe splits into two timelines; one in which Hitler was never killed which allowed the time traveller to then go back and kill him and another in which he is dead and history from that point on develops differently
Fantastic episode with great story and shedding just that extra bit of light on the whole story arc.
More more more please.
Oh I forgot more coming very soon - can't wait for the rest of the story to unfold.
Oh and by the way the answer to your question is no just some very clever and witty writing.
This show is too complicated. It ran at 100mph but, for me, left me cold. I know the ardent fans will love it but, for me, a casual viewer, I am giving up.
I loved the show under RTD. I enjoyed most of those episodes. But the few decent episodes since SM took over, and Matt Smith, are not enough to keep me watching.
The series link has been removed....
viewers the show needs in order to survive.