Download it! | Open Player in New Window

A plea to Steven Moffat rounds out this review of the sometimes crack-tastic, sometimes out-of-left-field, wildly entertaining and frustrating resumption of Series 6.

Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
Tagged with:
 

5 Responses to 2MTL 232: "Let's Kill Hitler" a Brilliant Ride; New Road Wanted

  1. Claudine says:

    Thanks for this review. I agree, I was worried the episode was going to revolve around Hitler and I wasnt in the mood for that at all, so I was so pleasantly surprised when it infact revolved around River Song and the Dr dying again. I am not too fussed that they are focusing on Song too much this season, though I see what you mean. Last year people complained that it focused too much on Amy, so I guess no one can win, but its good Alex Kingston is such a good and entertaining actress in order to put up with fleshing out her character. Otherwise, if it wasnt for her, yes River Song would be more tiresome to me. I guess she is a massive mystery that Moffatt wants to entertain us with. I tend to think of her as the reason why the Doctor and his Tardis crash landed at Amy's home in series 5, so that is quite magical, now we know the reason for him meeting Amy.

    My fave scene from this episode was when he went into the Tardis and wanted a voice avatar, rejected himself and old allies from the past series with Tennant and was bittersweet when he saw Amelia Pond. That was beautiful to me, and reminded me of the Dr from series 5.
    Great pod cast. Thanks and keep them coming.

  2. Michael says:

    I'd also like a break from the River Song soap opera.

    I do have a comment on your point about the viewers not being able to solve the mystery on their own, that Moffat's not playing fair. In the mystery genre books which are designed so that the readers can solve the murder are called "fair play" mysteries. These ruled the mystery genre before WWII, but as time went on became a smaller and smaller portion of the mystery market. Nowadays they are pretty rare. Thus, Moffat's storytelling (in that regard) is in keeping with how the majority of mysteries are now written, you're not supposed to be able to figure it out yourself.

    Thanks for your short podcasts, because of the format, and your clear opinions yours is always one of the first Doctor Who podcasts I listen to.

  3. Kevin says:

    Hey Chip, long time listener – yours was the very first Doctor Who podcast I listened to and it opened up a whole new world to me, so first of all, thanks for that.

    I just wanted to comment on your complaint that Moffat is 'not playing fair' with us, in that he makes it impossible for us as viewers to have a stab at working out what's going on in terms of the big story-arc.

    I'd question whether it's really necessary for us as viewers to be able to work out what's going on, to form our own theories about the story that's being told. I realise that a lot of fans in the community (not least bloggers and podcasters) do gain some enjoyment from theorising and making up their own story (And then later gloating that they got it right!) but I'm not sure that's the way I want to enjoy the series.

    For me (and perhaps it's only me) I'd rather let Moffat tell the story. I enjoy the way he does it – it's bonkers and unpredictable and complex and I like that. For me, guessing and theorising almost acts as a (dare I say it?) self-made spoiler! You're spoiling it for yourself by guessing the big reveal well before it happens. I'd rather let it happen and think, "Wow, that's clever! … it's completely crackers, but it's clever!"

    Figured I'd throw my 2 pence (or 2 cents to you, Sir) into the bucket. That's just how I see it. Keep up the good job!

  4. Lee says:

    Chip, I think your RTD-bias may be showing again. Despite having appeared in several episodes, River Song has only been the focus of ONE this year. I would argue that, in her appearances last season, she was little more than just another companion, not the focus of the eps themselves. In fact, aside from her initial appearance in Series 4, I would say that "Let's Kill Hitler" is the only time River has served as the main thrust of an episode. Hardly the tiresome story element you would make her out to be!

    By comparison, look how much time Russell T Davies spent on trying to shoehorn Rose back into the show after Billie Piper left, even to the point of giving her a second farewell! I think Moffat is just as entitled to telling River stories, especially since she's obviously more important to the Doctor — on a number of levels — than Rose ever was.

  5. James says:

    On a Timey Wimey level, I don't have a problem with Mels not showing up until after the events of Demons Run. Amy names Melody after Mels; Mels gets her parents together; viewers are told by Mels in a history class what will happen later in the episode in 1938. Time is messed up. Yes, it's Doctor Who!

    On a story level, if Mels had been in the series earlier wouldn't she have put her plan against the Doctor into action at that moment? Fate has kept them apart up until the cornfield, or else Mels wouldn't have been born.

    On a strategic level, it could in part be a reaction to all the speculation that Doctor Who attracts. How to write Doctor Who in the internet age and still keep surprises.

    On a practical level, I suspect Steven Moffat had not thought about Mels until he sat down to write the next episode following A Good Man Goes To War. If Steven Moffat was George Lucas, he would go back to the Eleventh Hour and re-release it with a CGI Mels inserted into Leadworth. Thankfully, Steven Moffat is not George Lucas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>