Doctor Who: Let?s Kill Craig
One more death would've dramatically improved "Closing Time."
Read Full Article
One more death would've dramatically improved "Closing Time."
Read Full Article
Except the Doctor didn't save Craig. He had nothing to do with Craig's salvation - it happened largely by accident.TimeLord said:It would have been better for Craig to die. But would it have fitted the Doctor's faith in humanity that their emotions, determination, imagination and need to explore the universe make them in some way better than him?
They already played with the theme of "the Doctor destroys lives" by sending Amy and Rory home, and even in the beginning of this episode by trying to get him to leave him so Craig didn't get himself hurt. The ending could have worked both ways. Kill Craig to reinforce that the Doctor is dangerous, or save Craig to show that the Doctor can save everyone if given the chance. I believe the episode made the right choice. They just went about it the wrong way.
EDIT: By the by, congrads on starting this column!
I think you hit the nail on the head there with the word "placeholder". Too many episodes in this series have been fillers that simply lead us into the enevitable "grand finalle". Look at the episode "Let's kill Hitler" what a dissapointment. Hitler, possibly the most infamous dictator in human history, was confronted and shoved in a cupboard in the first 10 minutes. That is exactly what happened to the storyline, it was wrapped up hurriedly and pushed aside. Instead we get a further 40 minutes of River Song prancing gratuitously around, the Doctor painfully dying (again) and pretty much nothing else. If the title alone didn't cause dissapointment by being misleading, the shameful exposition dump that it contained surely did.Susan Arendt said:But Craig survived, and as a result the episode was yet another pointless placeholding throwaway.
True, but in the majority of the new-Who (and that one Torchwood) Cybermen episodes, as you said in your article, they've played on the Cybermen's emotions as a weakness, which they again used here. Not necessarily because of the Doctor, or by any action of the Doctor, but it reinforces the Doctor's faith that the emotions of humanity are better and superior in every way than the Cybermen's lack of. Yeah it's a little (ok very) cliche that "emotions triumph over all" but isn't that the case at the very end? We never questioned the series one episode 'Dalek' for having the Dalek "infected" by Rose Tyler's humanity. Changing it into something else. The Doctor obviously realised that humanity was bad for a Dalek. He says so. But humanity caused the Dalek to spare Van Statten instead of blindly killing him and eventually killing itself. Showing again that human emotions can win out (to an extent) over hate and anger.Susan Arendt said:Except the Doctor didn't save Craig. He had nothing to do with Craig's salvation - it happened largely by accident.TimeLord said:It would have been better for Craig to die. But would it have fitted the Doctor's faith in humanity that their emotions, determination, imagination and need to explore the universe make them in some way better than him?
They already played with the theme of "the Doctor destroys lives" by sending Amy and Rory home, and even in the beginning of this episode by trying to get him to leave him so Craig didn't get himself hurt. The ending could have worked both ways. Kill Craig to reinforce that the Doctor is dangerous, or save Craig to show that the Doctor can save everyone if given the chance. I believe the episode made the right choice. They just went about it the wrong way.
EDIT: By the by, congrads on starting this column!
Agreed, keep 'Let's Kill Hitler' just as the episode that explains River Song. But after that it could have jumped straight to episode 13 and we would have missed nothing.Proverbial Jon said:But this series is weak, perhaps because it has been split in two. I get the impression it would have worked better if the series finalle had followed directly after the mid series finalle. Instead, to bulk it out, we get these weak filler stories. Sad times.
And if it had been because his wife was in danger I'd probably agree, but the emotional connection between a parent and offspring is one of the strongest there is so its a damn sight more belivable. Aso, whats the difference between Love and Friendship other then the target and strength of the emotion?Ser Imp said:It is INCREDIBLY cheesy to have this ONE person be able to completely reject the process purely through the power of love. If he had used the power of FRIENDSHIP on the other hand, I totally would have bought it.
A Doctor Who column?Susan Arendt said:One more death...
If I may be so bold, your article on reading X-Men comics and their impact on your youth was fascinating. I, for one, would be very interested to read how the Doctor may have done the same.Susan Arendt said:It's not hyperbolic grandstanding when I say that I wouldn't be who I am today if it weren't for the Doctor, but I wasn't sure how I should begin writing about something that I find so meaningful.
Remember what happened with gold on the original series? After seeing that go from credible weakness (gold dust clogged their respirators) to magic spell (toss a gold coin with barely enough force to bruise a human, watch chest plate explode), I've really given up on any kind of legacy for those guys. But that's a side effect of being a long-running villain on Doctor Who: After getting beaten a dozen times by some silly man and cute girl in a blue box, it's hard for even the writers to take 'em seriously. Look at the Daleks since the revival. From genuine nightmare in Dalek to Power Rangers wannabes in... whatever that episode was called.The idea that you could destroy Cybermen with love is not only insulting to their legacy, but to the viewers' intelligence.
Oh, man, I'd better spoiler this.Susan Arendt wants everyone to go watch "Earthshock," another Cyberman episode.
But the Daleks were made hilarious long before that. Pushing them down mine shafts, into each other, off ledges etc.Formica Archonis said:But that's a side effect of being a long-running villain on Doctor Who: After getting beaten a dozen times by some silly man and cute girl in a blue box, it's hard for even the writers to take 'em seriously. Look at the Daleks since the revival. From genuine nightmare in Dalek to Power Rangers wannabes in... whatever that episode was called.
Oh, now, I wouldn't put him in Wesley Crusher territory. That's more Turlough, don't you think?Formica Archonis said:Remember what happened with gold on the original series? After seeing that go from credible weakness (gold dust clogged their respirators) to magic spell (toss a gold coin with barely enough force to bruise a human, watch chest plate explode), I've really given up on any kind of legacy for those guys. But that's a side effect of being a long-running villain on Doctor Who: After getting beaten a dozen times by some silly man and cute girl in a blue box, it's hard for even the writers to take 'em seriously. Look at the Daleks since the revival. From genuine nightmare in Dalek to Power Rangers wannabes in... whatever that episode was called.The idea that you could destroy Cybermen with love is not only insulting to their legacy, but to the viewers' intelligence.
It was a fluff sequel to a fluff episode and starred a baby, something mindless to be used as a light lead-in to what we assume is going to be a dark finale episode, given the bad guy loadout. I fully expected the body count to be limited to unknowns.
Oh, man, I'd better spoiler this.Susan Arendt wants everyone to go watch "Earthshock," another Cyberman episode.
Unfortunately your point is slightly undermined in that it's the Wesley Crusher of the Whoniverse that bites it at the end of that episode. Might hold up as a standalone, but we didn't exactly lose a beloved character when Adric died.
I'd agree with that. Moffat's first series was pretty much everything I hoped it would be (the set-up for the Doctor and Amy in The Eleventh Hour is easily my favourite introduction of a new companion), whereas in this one I haven't been so impressed. There have been some great ideas, but it's been the strength of Moffat's plotting, rather than the actual drama itself, that has impressed me. The way he is going about joining the dots together, throwing in plot thread after plot thread, spanning both of his series, is really quite impressive just from a technical standpoint (although I get the feeling there will be endless plot holes if you look hard enough).TimeLord said:Agreed, keep 'Let's Kill Hitler' just as the episode that explains River Song. But after that it could have jumped straight to episode 13 and we would have missed nothing.Proverbial Jon said:But this series is weak, perhaps because it has been split in two. I get the impression it would have worked better if the series finalle had followed directly after the mid series finalle. Instead, to bulk it out, we get these weak filler stories. Sad times.
Like I said, long running. They got an extension when they started playing second fiddle to Davros.TimeLord said:But the Daleks were made hilarious long before that. Pushing them down mine shafts, into each other, off ledges etc.
Dude. Cushing movies. Dude. Slightly more canon than Nation's Yarvelling-Dalek comics and I'm Gonna Spend My Christmas with a Dalek.TimeLord said:Also, I hate the Dalek Power Ranger argument;
They were coloured before! Long before!
As my wife constantly points out they're attacking people with plungers and paint-rollers.Formica Archonis said:Like I said, long running. They got an extension when they started playing second fiddle to Davros.TimeLord said:But the Daleks were made hilarious long before that. Pushing them down mine shafts, into each other, off ledges etc.
Dude. Cushing movies. Dude. Slightly more canon than Nation's Yarvelling-Dalek comics and I'm Gonna Spend My Christmas with a Dalek.TimeLord said:Also, I hate the Dalek Power Ranger argument;
They were coloured before! Long before!