I still think, despite her daddy issues, it was really out of character for Rose to push the kid back into a relationship with his abuser. Like the man was cartoonishly evil the whole episode, no glimmer of a better man lurking beneath the surface. It feels completely one dimensional to have her be like "but he's your dad 🥺" at the end. I just don't buy it as a thing she would do.
She was also one of the most outspoken people against him. It was a weird 180. I've always assumed that whoever wrote it was in the process of sorting through "I hated my dad but now he's dead and I'm confused?" trauma
Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks is severely underrated. There are surface-level positives worth mentioning: Andrew Garfield, Hugh Quarshie, the soundtrack, the fact it's the only Dalek story written by a woman, the Cult of Skaro, etc etc. But what truly sets this episode apart is that it is very different from basically any other Dalek story we've had in New Who, and it isn't scared to deviate from what we've come to expect from a Dalek episode in order to tell a story that has a significant point to make. The union of Dalek Sec and Diagoras, two merciless and unempathetic individuals, creates a better person. The whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The tragedy of Sec is that he was not only open to change, over the course of part 2 he actively transitions from a tyrant to a pacifist simply by observing the events playing out around him and reasoning that there is a better way. The hybrid is able to use the best aspects of both species - the Daleks' intelligence and Humanity's empathy - to strive for a better life for both species. People criticise this episode for superficial reasons - bad accents, odd-looking monster designs, corny dialogue etc - without taking the time to scratch the surface and truly understand the point that Helen Raynor is trying to make. Doctor Who is a fundamentally silly show, but with fundamentally significant lessons to teach, and DiM/EotD is a perfect example of this. It's a homage to classic sci-fi B-Movies, filled with shouty metal aliens, pig monsters, a musical number, a brain man with phallic protrusions on his face, and bad American accents. But it's also a pure distillation of the arrogant xenophobia of the Daleks contrasted with the mercy and bravery of ordinary people. It is for these reasons that DiM/EotD is my favourite Tennant-era Dalek story. It isn't just another 'Daleks invade Earth, blow stuff up, get wiped out' - it takes the time to dig deep into what makes the Daleks reprehensible, and contrasts that with the positive aspects of Humankind. There are also tired-old criticisms of this story that I thought we were well past parroting as a fandom. But just to round off a few: Q: Why do the Daleks cross people with pigs? A: Because pigs are readily available, intelligent, omnivorous and docile yet capable of violence when provoked. Crossing people with pigs creates an army of slaves that the Daleks can use for their own purposes, without needing to waste power or resources designing a new life form from scratch. Q: Why do the Daleks want to fuse with humans? A: 3/4 of them don't. Sec is a visionary who sees past Dalek dogma and recognises the potential of Humankind. The rest of the Cult disagree, there's even a scene where they question him before his hybridisation and he has to argue his case, and then the rest of the Cult go on to betray him once the Hybrid becomes a pacifist. Q: Why is the episode set in Manhattan? A: Manhattan in this era was a stark representation of the inequalities present in Human society, the horrendous juxtaposition of the conditions of the rich compared to the poor, and the heart of rapid industrialisation at the expense of Human lives that defined the early 20th century, it's ideal for paralleling how Humans of a lower-class are trodden on by the upper-class with how Daleks perceive themselves to be superior and all 'lesser' life forms as expendable - a fact that contributes to Sec's transition from tyrant to pacifist when Caan ruthlessly guns down Solomon, a man who Sec respects for representing the exact aspects of Humanity that he wanted to harness. I'd honestly recommend rewatching this episode to those who haven't seen it in a while, it's great fun but it also has a cutting point to make that is still (sadly) just as relevant today, if not more so.
I agree whole heartedly. You should add that Sec looks that way when hybridised is because he has forcefully shoved his own body onto an unwilling host. He looks like a Dalek mutant planted on top of a regular guy's head because that’s literally what has happened. The others are just human hosts with dna being pumped into them. Complaining that the designs look goofy is like complaining about the unrealistic medicine in Star Trek. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Yeah I never understood the hate for this two-parter, as a child I loved it and now as an adult I appreciate it even more. The Cult of Skaro are such a unique idea and brought a refreshing change to the Daleks in the stories they appear in, people say they’re getting bored of the Daleks but when they finally get a new coat of paint they complain that the Daleks are acting different.
Thank you! I love this two-parter, and was heavily confused when I started getting involved in the online fandom and realised how widely disliked it was
This! By the end of the episode we're just not meant to care that there is still a kidnapped baby out there somewhere. Because growing up with your daughter is totally the same as raising her. Amy and Rory should be furious and devastated but instead we just move on to the next adventure. Not to mention the Mel twist just doesn't work at all when she's a character who was only introduced in that episode and honestly only exists in that episode. She's never mentioned or seen before or after that episode so there's no weight or impact of discovering that she's really River.
Moffat almost made a habit of doing that, sadly. Into the Dalek brings up that the Doctor is still not over the destruction of his planet by the Daleks and that he sometimes acts more like a Dalek than actual Daleks...and it's not dealt with nor brought up again. Because we go straight to Robot of Sherwood. Why even do this if there's no plans to follow through? Its like nobody could decide if they wanted New Who to emaulate the original with it's strange stories with barely any overarching plot, or they wanted it do what modern shows do with plot arcs stretching over one or two seasons. So much of New Who feels, to me, confused.
"Well. I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled, when I suddenly thought, “Gosh. The Third Reich’s a bit rubbish. I think I’ll kill the Führer.” Who’s with me?" That gets quoted a lot in my friend group and I love Let's kill Hitler for that moment. The banter in this episode is just so fun overall.
Mentioning Idiot's Lantern again really reminds me of the new Color Purple musical movie, which I was going along with great for most of it...and then the last 20 minutes suddenly take a hard turn into literally giving a message of "Abuse victims will go to Hell if they don't forgive their abusers and become friendly with them." Maybe that's true to the book, I haven't read it, but I definitely don't remember it being in the Spielberg film, and you'd hope people doing an adaptation now would recognize that they should change it if that was the case.
As someone who just read the book, she forgives him. It has nothing to do with going to hell. She curses him. Like in the Spielberg film. But there is a decent chunk of book after that. His life falls apart and it takes a long time and a lot of making amends and she basically is just like I forgive you because I'm happy and I don't have space to hate you. Then she states pretty explicitly she's not into men they sort of become cool. I don't love them becoming cool with each other but it was very realistic for the time period with more acceptance for Celie's sexuality.
I did actually dislike Haunting for precisely the reason you stated. As a Mary Shelley fan, I HATED that she was so disrespected. I didn't like that the servants got slaughtered and no one cared. The only thing I liked was the costuming. Seriously. I didn't even like the half cyber dude because I thought he was super angsty and melodramatic. So, I agree with you on pretty much the whole list. I had actually forgotten completely about some of them. XD
I find "A Town Called Mercy" much more enjoyable if you imagine that it's the backstory to the simulation Kryten's playing in _Red Dwarf's_ "Gunmen of the Apocalypse".
IMO the criticism of LKH as “not engaging with the historical setting” is off base because, while it may not deal with historical detail about the makeup of society in 1930s Germany, it is absolutely ABOUT our modern society’s relationship to stories set in Nazi era Germany - to the point that I don’t think you could necessarily set it anywhere else. It’s a story about how ludicrous attempts to do “SF time travel plot with Hitler” inherently are, through critiquing the logic of the Tesselecta being a punishment machine that goes back in time and decides to hurt people who are already dead for the things they did that made the Tesselecta want to go back and punish them in the first place. The Doctor outright mocks their logic and points out how ridiculous this is; and Hitler is the archetypal “if you could go back in time and kill X…” thought experiment - you kinda HAVE to do it with him. But more cleverly still, of course, is that it’s relevant thematically to the rest of the season. Going back down a person’s timeline to kill them before they do the acts you disapprove of … is exactly what Kovarian and the Silence are trying to do to the Doctor throughout the Smith era, especially S6. I also disagree with the assessment of Eaters of Light as forgettable and as not doing anything with its setting. It riffs quite a lot on Pictish mythology in multiple forms, there’s the depiction of Roman imperialism and what they do to the lands they conquer, there’s the idea of challenging modern audiences about the sexual identities of the ancient world, and there’s a rerun of the Zygon Inversion conflict between two sides which uses the unique potential of different languages and the TARDIS’ lip-sync translation circuit to prompt us to think about communication in conflict and what our war rhetoric sounds like.
Speaking as an historian, I love let’s Kill Hitler. It’s Moffat showing why time travel plots about killing Hitler are ridiculous, and then he spins it into a 1930s style farce with River being a gay icon. It’s an insane episode but I think that makes it work.
The episode lost me where they implied killing the Doctor was worse than being Hitler. It also did that obnoxious Moffat Holmes thing with the constant "oh but really" back and forth between River and the Doctor. I also really didn't like the way they incorporated River and the additional fake-human mechanism...overall I just don't like that episode. I agree the above positives are there, but they're overwhelmed by the negatives for me.
@@Stile4alydamn so did the Kingsman film steal that? Still I love the line to the fanatical religious woman. I'm a Catholic wh*** enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works in a military abortion clinic. So hail Satan and have a wonderful afternoon.
Best line in all of Dr Who was in that episode. And River said it. "Well. I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled, when I suddenly thought, “Gosh. The Third Reich’s a bit rubbish. I think I’ll kill the Führer.” Who’s with me?"
As a Scottish person, the idea of setting a story based around the legend of the singing mountains is such a fun idea, tying it to The Lost Legion to create a fascinating sci-fi answer to both mysteries. It should be treated similarly to Agatha Christie's disappearance in "The Unicorn and the Wasp" In my mind, no real historical message to be found just Doctor Who having fun in answering a famous (all be it to Scotland) mystery. On another note, I always thought there was an incredibly important reason why "A Town Called Mercy" is a Western. It's because it's CALLED MERCY. A pre "Day of the Doctor" Doctor has to look at an Alian Doctor, one who committed genocide to win a war, banished himself to earth, and uses the humans he picked up as his emotional support pets, showing them incredible futuristic technology to wow them into liking him and in spite of all that, become the sheriff of mercy and rally mercy to protect and save him, thus proving to himself he's still worth something. If you want a historical fact to bolster the narrative the incredible sense of community small towns must have had to survive the lesser arias of America should surface, but does it need that to be a good episode? I guess one question for you is what counts as not "utilizing" a setting well and does it need to? Don't get me wrong I love a lot of your takes but you use this argument a lot in this video when I think it could be made more clear. I would argue that "Fires of Pompeii" like a "Town Called Mercy", does nothing with its historical setting bar set the stage for a moral battle between characters. Mount Vesuvius is only pertinent to the story enough to give The Doctor and Donna a moral battle, and The Mob Mentality of Mercy is only pertinent to the story enough to give The Doctor a moral quandary. Why are these different? On the opposite standpoint, you've gone on record saying episodes like Robots of Sherwood and Curse of the Black Spot are guilty favorites. They have little to no actual historical information bar the fake depictions of highwaymen and pirates found in modern media. (Sidebar you're the reason I now LOVE Robots of Sherwood) Why do they get a pass? If a historical setting is only there to bolster the individual characters instead of giving any real historical context, is an episode any lesser for it and is this a bias we give historicals because we expect them to depict known facts of the past accurately that we forget all episodes of Doctor Who are fictional. Any historical setting is by definition fake the same way Satellite Five or Demons Run is?
Could not agree more with your take on the ending of idiots lantern. It's more than just fumbling the messaging, It's damnright irresponsible the way it was framed. Anyone who's ever been a victim of emotional and/or physical abuse will know how thoughtless that ending is
14:00 Tbh I think it does work a bit better since it displays River's initial perspective on time travel and how it is _so_ different from The Doctor. With 20 years of planning and anticipation, her very first thought is quite simple, the classic "go back in time and kill Hitler" cliche. I wouldn't really consider it a "historical" episode, but rather the historical aspect is simply because of the out-of-universe cliche. River has had 20+ years to think on this and has never once considered the danger to the fabric of time or anything. Sure, she doesn't know the specifics, but this gives us insight into how she thinks about things, because people who have never seen Doctor Who in real life discuss this and bring up the paradox problems it creates. River does not think about that or care. She's a bull in a china shop of the laws of time. It pairs extremely well with the Time Lord Victorious stuff with Ten, because it shows that she's starting from that perspective. The mere possession of the ability to travel in space and time, even stolen, is enough for her to instantly view it from the perspective of "I can, I will, I'm in charge". Using "kill Hitler" is simply the easiest shorthand for this entire concept. Morally, if not for all the paradox problems, it would be a heroic act. However, it shows the person doing it doesn't understand or respect how time works and flows. Without any of Doctor Who's specific names or rules regarding these things, we all recognize how the Nazis are even in real life, a fixed point in time. You can't meddle with that even if you have the ability because not only does it create a time paradox of you having no reason to do it if you do it, but also if you were born after WW2 you are guaranteed to be temporally aborting yourself, everyone else born after WW2, and so much more. Going back in time to kill Hitler is easy shorthand for "this person is a heroic killer, but also an idiot who has no idea what the hell they're doing". Like Deadpool. The setting and everything _does_ serve the plot, but the plot isn't about the setting. It's about establishing River's starting point and how she's developed from her time with The Doctor and her parents after/before this, showing River Song's devil-may-care personality at its core without any of the education or growth that's forced her to be smarter. She grows from "I'm going to blow up the entire fabric of space and time because I don't understand any of that despite it being a thing most people can intuit on their own" to her "spoilers" thing, and it makes sense because her personality hardly suggests that she's the type who would naturally be cautious or wise about obeying the laws of time. Basically, it serves to show us the core of River Song, without any of the growth or education she'll later have. It's River's worst and best personality traits on display at full force without any of the filtering that later knowledge and experience will give it. It shows us her true self using a classic time travel cliche, a heroic killer who acts first and thinks later.
Very well said. How so many people seem to miss that the title of the episode isn't literal, and is referring to the moral/ethical philosophical question, blows my mind.
Eaters of the Light is one of my favorite episodes of doctor who ever. It makes me cry. Idk Im weak. Theres the who thing with missy and how she doesnt get it and how the doctor is like “you never listen to the music. Its a good bill episode and I love bill Also It does my favorite thing where the ending sucker punches to the beginning with the girl and the hill and the music and the ghosts Also that the crows used to talk all the time and the doctor is like, they don’t dont anymore because their crabby, but we learn they are actually just remembering Karns sacrifice forever
It wasn't a perfect episode, but the way Bill gets her assumptions handed to her, and the scene with Missy at the end is incredible. Even the point that war--especially war of this period--was made so much worse because the two sides didn't speak a common language. More was good about it than bad, IMO.
I just wish they'd thought to take out the scene of Bill realizing the TARDIS is translating for her after it was moved to so much later in the season, so now it looks like she'd just been assuming the whole time the aliens really were speaking English.
I liked Eaters of Light because it was so small-scale and felt like a nice break from Moffat’s typical “the world is going to end” episodes during his era. And I think it ties in well with Twelve’s running storyline vis a vis soldiers, since a big part of the ep is realizing that all the soldiers on both sides are really just children.
Thank you for explaining why the ending of Idiot's Lantern strikes such a wrong note. It had bothered me too, but not for any reason I could put my finger on until now. Writers of historical fiction don't have carte blanche to ignore present-day sensibilities for the sake of period detail; quite the opposite, they have a responsibility to show why things needed to change and examine whether or not they've changed for the better.
Well said. People will often defend things as "historically accurate," but you can make a historically accurate thing without the narrative voice framing the bad things as fine. All the characters can suck and have historically accurate bad takes without the narrative condoning it. Well people who make these sorts of excuses won't be able to pull it off, if they can't see the difference. The abuse issue in Idiot's Lantern wasn't really related to the historical context (If I recall the way it was dealt with and approached by the historical characters does feel like something that was more normalized in that era, so maybe a little), but you get the same sort of thing with abuse narratives.
Vera "number two is my favorite/least favorite" Wylde
10 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Thank you for this channel, and I genuinely loved this episode. This is the first full length video of you I've watched, and I love your intensity, and willingness to give your opinions even if they might be unpopular. What I mostly love about your channel is *you*, and the steps you've take to be your truth. I'm old and cynical, but getting to see your fearless discussions of the reality is genuinely comforting and inspiring. Your closing is really sweet, and offered some much-needed comfort. Thank you again for this channel.
Empress of Mars: counting this as a historical seems dubious. I like it, but it's iffy. Feels more like an honorable mention. Witchfinders: Alan Cummings, a good setting and an evil tree. This was a fun romp. A little bit of history, a little bit of characterization and some mad sci-fi ideas. Let's kill Hitler: A title in search of a story. Basically a collection of bits, setting up the coming season, none of which really come together to make an actual story or even something that stands on its own. Some bits are fun, but as a whole, it's a mess. Eaters of light: New Who is not good at one off monsters and as soon as the demon dogs show up, this episode gets blah. Legend of the sea devils: again, I love a romp. Monsters vs Pirates. I forgive some flaws as they were filming during a pandemic. Plus, I hate putting the Doctor in a romance, but 13 and Yaz are the best one.
Absolutely. IMO, I think Moffat sorta got there in the end. Maybe not in plot/stories, but definitely character. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but at least he was able to craft characters w/ a little more depth than a stereotype/fantasy lmao
I don't think Mary shelly being inspired by the events of that episode isn't something I considered as a problem but the doctor saving Percy because he's too important seemed incredibly undoctor like
I read it as the Doctor refusing to sacrifice one person, because everyone is important. In his case he's a figure of history that has to be preserved, and he is an artist, and art should be preserved. The Doctor upholding the laws of time over potentially meddling for the greater good is what the Doctor has always done. Percy Shelly isn’t even the most important/famous artist in the room and therefore it seems like it’s only fair to let him die, for the greater good. The only one who stands up for him is the Doctor and that is exactly what the Doctor would do.
@@intergalactic92 oh yeah standing up for one lone person like that is very doctor like but the reasoning is the issue. It really didn't come across as an everyone is important thing
Easy guess that The Idiot's Lantern would be so high. The top spot was just a nothing episode for me, but you made good points that it was worse than a nothing episode. Funny that the two to sideline important historical women are from the Chibnall era. I kind of love the absolute mess that is Let's Kill Hitler. It's not good, at all, but I have a lot of affection for its arbitrary contrivances and camp.
I'm a victim of an abusive father and that makes #2 even harder to watch. So yes I agree with your list and your reasons and I was really abused. I was hit on my head with a pipe and my hair pulled on and that's not all. I don't like to talk about it and I don't like to see it in my entertainment. And this is triggering me just typing about it. But to defend Rose she never got to spend as much time with her dad as she wanted and I can see that but it's not right. I love doctor who and I've been a fan since the 70s but some episodes are just really hard to watch
Like she said in the video, it makes sense for Rose as a character. The problem was everything else around it, the tone set, the doctor not saying anything, framed it as a good thing as well.
It’s funny. Ben Browder was the one American to star in Farscape as it shot in Australia. He guest stars on Doctor Who at a time where American guest stars are basically nonexistent and continue to be so for SIX years.
This is my WORST 10, 10. The Unquiet Dead Ghosts trying to be scary, and failing. 9. The Unicorn and the Wasp Whose idea was it to combine a storyline about giant killer wasps with one about Agatha Christie? 8. Demons of the Punjab A painfully slow retelling of the plot of Twice Upon a Time. 7. The Idiot's Lantern The television zapping away people's faces would have been a terrified concept, if it weren't undercut by the laughable cartoonish villain. 6. The Eaters of Light The only bad episode of series 10. But it is quite bad. 5. The Vampires of Venice Should have been called "The Fishmen of Venice". 4. The Woman Who Lived Clara and Me are two of the most poorly written characters in New Who, and yet we get stuck with them for the entirety of this episode with basically nothing else happening. Oh joy. 3. The Shakespeare Code This episode genuinely infuriates me. Between the Doctor casually tossing aside Martha's fears about racism, him stanning for JK, and him friendzoning Martha so hard, 10 really does come across as a massive douche. And yet he is framed as the hero... ugh. 2. Legend of the Sea Devils If Chibnall told us he finished the script for this in a day, I'd believe him. 1. Lets Kill Hitler Hate the premise, hate the retconning of Amy now apparently having a friend she had never mentioned before, hate the two dimension depiction of River, hate the "action" sequences, hate the obvious Doctor death fake out, hate River needing to exhaust her entire regeneration cycle to save the Doctor... pretty much hate the whole damn episode.
My girlfriend is a big fan of classic mysteries but also has a phobia of wasps. She was legit mad at me for _getting get into Doctor Who at all_ when we got to that episode 😭. Also, Shakespeare Code came out in 2007. I agree that it's a bad episode but you can hardly blame it for endorsing Harry Potter. Rowling hadn't started with her terf nonsense and it was generally considered a progressive series at the time.
Unquiet Dead is very mid for me but holds a special place as the theatre scenes were filmed were I work! 😂 Same acc applies to New Earth, but…erm, anyway!
Genuinely surprised that Victory of the Daleks didn't make the list anywhere. It's best ideas are both warmed over and underused, giving the Doctor such a strange extended relationship with Churchill is bizarre, and while I'd say its only a historical for the visual of biplanes vs spaceships, that would suggest there's a greater point to the episode than that. As an episode overall it's weaker than most of the list, I think, and I feel it benefits even less from its nature as a historical than the likes of Let's Kill Hitler or A Town Called Mercy.
If historical accuracy is a factor in ranking these things, then Robot of Sherwood is easily the worst historical episode of Doctor Who ever made. That said, Let's Kill Hitler is probably THE worst episode of Doctor Who ever made, so... Also, if you want to talk about insulting and dangerous historical narratives: Victory of the Daleks, and its lionisation of racist, concentration camp advocate and war criminal Winston Churchill is a fairly serious one (though, of course, by no means unique to Who given how British culture refuses to acknowledge the man's crimes and puts him on our fucking money).
I quite enjoyed The Eaters Of Light myself, but one thing that I can’t help but fault it it on is that they missed a golden opportunity to cast Karen Gillan as the Pict leader and establish that Amy’s resemblance to her and to the soothsayer from Fires Of Pompeii (who’s clairvoyance is attributed to “a rift in time”) was down to the same “spatial genetic multiplicity” (caused by The Cardiff Rift) that caused Gwen Cooper to resemble Gwyneth from The Unquiet Dead.
I don't love "The Haunting", though I do disagree with the whole "being disrespectful to Mary Shelley" thing. The trope of "let's use a historical figure and invent a sci-fi reason to serve as their inspiration for a story has been done a lot. They did it with Charles Dickens, they did it with Shakespeare, Van Gogh, etc. Honestly, I was terrified watching "Rosa" thinking they'd do something stupid like that which THANKFULLY they kept their distance. I guess you could argue that in those cases, they met up with them in the middle of their careers, but I don't think it's that fundamentally different. As for "The Idiot's Lantern", I get what they were trying to do with that ending. Family is important, and I can see an argument that the father may not have ALWAYS been like that. He actually seems not monstrous in the opening scene before their nana has her face stolen. Perhaps the crisis pushed him to do things they never thought possible. But in the rest of the episode, he becomes such a cartoonish irredeemable prick that it's impossible to feel sympathetic for him. And yes, no matter what circumstances may have led him there, they don't excuse his actions which were textbook abuse. He does not deserve an olive branch, especially when he hasn't done anything at all to redeem his actions
There is a MASSIVE difference between what was done to Mary Shelly and how the show handled Van Gogh, Shakespeare, or Dickens. In those cases they were all established already and it’s only implied that the events of the show influenced a single work of many. Mary Shelly (despite deserving far more notice for her work outside of Frankenstein) is ultimately known for just the one thing: and that’s the thing the show implied she didn’t think of.
I'd agree with most of these, especially your number one pic. I was looking forward to Legend of the Sea Devils. The Sea Devils and Silurians are my favourite DW monsters. I've lost count of how many times I've watched Doctor Who and the Silurians, The Sea Devils and even Warriors of the Deep (not the best episode, but it has it's moments.) Honestly, so many of Jon Pertwee's stories have engaging storylines and sincere messages about humanity and I love them. Legend of the Sea Devils had absolutely none of that.
I actually really like the series 3 Dalek 2-parter, specifically because it's one of the few times in new-who the Daleks have felt like actual characters, as opposed to mindless robots that shout exterminate constantly. Sec's whole revelation about evolving the Dalek race, the rest of the cult of Skaro rejecting it and plotting and scheming behind Sec's back and betraying him, unable to let go of the basic Dalek ideology, which in the end leads to their destruction. The scene of, I think it's Khan and Thay, talking about Dalek Sec is one of the best character moments for the Daleks in the revived series, just that small moment of Khan looking around to see if anyone's listening before answering Thay's question. It also may not amount to much, but I do like the setting and the kind of atmosphere it lends to certain scenes. Maybe it's because of the scenes of the Daleks experimenting and conversing in a way that isn't just "SEEK! LOCATE! EXTERMINATE!", or maybe it's just because of how badly the Dalek's were treated by Moffat, that makes me really appreciate Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks.
Watching this reminded me of an episode of Touched By An Angel that I never saw when I was young, but for the first time saw now, and it has stuck with me for all the wrong reasons. It positively INFURIATED me in SO many ways. The episode focused on two brothers living with their uncle in a poor neighborhood. The uncle was never home at night and slept all day. He had a vicious dog. The uncle cared nothing for the kids at all, to the point where they had little to no food in the house, and he would punish them if they tried to eat any of what they did have. Meanwhile, the older brother abused his younger brother just as badly. The younger brother finds a gym and starts boxing. He idolizes Muhammad Ali without knowing much about his personal struggles. The older brother gets meningitis, and when he comes out of the hospital he is confined to a wheelchair. The uncle still refuses to take care of either boy, and it's revealed that he starves the dog for the sole purpose of fighting in matches. The dog dies shortly after the younger brother actually feeds the starving dog, and the dog doesn't fight as well in the match which costs him his life. The uncle gets a new dog and proceeds to treat the dog the same as the other one. The younger brother finally is forced by the angels to confront his home life. They bring Muhammad Ali himself, who had in real life just suffered a stroke, to "talk" to him, when in reality it is the angel Tess who does the talking FOR him because Muhammad Ali was barely able to speak at all. The younger brother goes home and tells his uncle, because the angels TOLD him that the family MUST STAY TOGETHER, that things are going to change. This uncle should have been ARRESTED for ANIMAL AND CHILD ABUSE. The kids should have been placed in foster care and the dog should have been placed in a shelter for proper care. Instead these "angels," who do "God's work," basically sent a message to this poor kid that, while physical fights are not necessary to defend against abuse, "love" is more important than anything and it is the key to improving quality of life, even if the anguish of the sheer MEMORY of the abuse turns out to be more problematic than the breakup of this "family." The angels privately warn the uncle that they'll keep watch over the kids to ensure they're being properly looked after. From the disgusting prop-use of Muhammad Ali to the complete and utter ignoring of the animal abuse and the ACTUAL CRIMES committed there, to telling the abuse victims that "Your ABUSER NEEDS YOU to STAY with him cause otherwise HIS life will become a downward spiral, and GOD dosn't want that; God LOVES you but ONLY if you STAY with your abuser, because the unit of a family is more important than your RELATIONSHIP with them" I can't believe this episode got on the air, let alone that Muhammad Ali would have put up with this disgusting story. The angel Monica was undercover as a SOCIAL WORKER for God's sake! I guess being an angel made her immune to following the laws of this country, where you are REQUIRED to REPORT abuse. OMFG, this pissed me off. I can't even remember the episode you talked about, if I've ever seen it, but I'm sure I would feel the same way that you do. The Doctor would never have allowed that boy to go back to his abuser, and the Doctor would have CERTAINLY have had some strong words to Rose for that. Makes my blood boil.
Ways to improve Legend of the Sea Devils: -Give some color and a more "Chinese alligator scute" texture, and remove the whites of the eyes (and make them more oval)...and maybe a "spoonbill" element for the mouth -Rather than an absurd jump, have the flying ship drop a rope -Hide the Hua-Shen a little better at the start so it's spookier, and improve it's looks/textures for the built-up reveal -Zheng Yi Sao & her second husband (Zheng Bao) had policies for protecting women from mistreatment (maybe genderswap Ying Ki to let this show, and have Madam Ching adopt her at the end) and distributing wealth equally (they also banned invading friendly towns, which could have been something she adopts as a policy at the end of the story) -Replace the fictional "Sin Ji-Hun" with someone like the legendary "Jang Bogo" (a Korean maritime leader who rose from commoner roots, fought to end slavery, and was so influential in 700's Korean politics as to play Kingmaker during a rebellion)
As a history nerd I don't really mind most of them, Idiots Lantern and Crimson Horror are the only one's that I take much issue with. They're easily the highlight of the Whittaker era, though Haunting does sit in a weird space currently where I enjoy it but some frustrating choices make it more of a guilty pleasure rather than a story I could confidently say I enjoy.
That's a fair point against Villa Deodati. It's the same reason I hated the film "Saving Mr. Banks", it all but shouted that PL Travers just copied the Mary Poppins character from her childhood nanny
Oh, no, Eaters of Light is in fourth place! But, that's okay. It's your list, and no one else's, and I agree with every other placement, especially about Mary Shelley. The fact that Frankenstein was likely at least partially inspired by the birth of her stillborn baby, and her husband's horrified reaction, makes it even more insulting.
OH WOW. I love series 10, especially for what it is in the Doctor’s story and the companions are fun together with him (let alone how Bill and Nardole, but Eaters of Light and Empress of Mars are my two biggest attention losers pre-Chibnall. I had no memory of what these episodes did after their original airings and one HBO Max binge, and because of my ADHD I wasn’t sure if it was a me thing or if it was the fault of the episodes. And frankly now 4 months removed from a second rewatch, and seeing your opinion and a response I got earlier from bringing this up on a different video, it really just feels like they weren’t good episodes to begin with and bored me. And frankly for them to be the bridge between the Monks trilogy and the finale sucks even more that it’s just a black hole between two better parts of the season. I tried to get people to gush about these episodes in Facebook group posts and most of the praises were for the general season.
The worst part of A Town Called Mercy was that it was part of a season with 2 episodes that were crying out to be 2-parters (The Angels Take Manhattan and The Power of Three), but instead of making one of those stories better, we got this boring one
I agree with the vast majority of this list. The two that I would make cases for are Eaters of Light and Witch Finders. For Eaters, I would say a huge point in its favour is that Bill is the driving force for going to the setting. She is arguing for the lost legion and wants to prove The Doctor wrong. For Witch, it is telling the story of these women who were killed for thinking differently and the conflict that wrought in families. King James is a cherry on top. He doesn't have to be there and that takes nothing away. Ultimately, these two stories are just both comfort Who for me.
Am I the only one who actually likes Evolution of the Daleks? I really love the side characters we're introduced to and the notion of Hooverville being in the shadow of the Empire State Building. Also the idea that the daleks stagnating forced them to want to change is fascinating to think about. Is it a perfect episode? No. But its one that I find myself enjoying more with every rewatch.
Apparently Empress of Mars was supposed to have Winston Churchill, and Ian McNiece was really looking forward to it, but ultimately they just couldn't figure out a way to fit him in.
Personally I don’t find anything wrong telling a story, that could be told in the present time, in a historical setting. The Doctor has a Time Machine so why not have episodes like Kill Hitler, that mainly is Rivers origin story set in the 30s instead of the present or future? With a Time Machine why not utilise all of history to tell stories that isn’t period bound. But I do agree that the historical characters like James 1, Mary Shelley etc should do be better utilised, factually correct (except for the SCIFY stuff) and contribute to the story and not just be there because of the time period.
Percy Shelley adulterated Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with that absolute waffle at the beginning of the book about Frankenstein's adopted sister that honestly made my brain switch off.
Very good points. I still like Villa Diodati and Legend of the Sea Devils, but anyway, they do have problems. Nothing to say about the Idiot's Lantern, I probably hate it as much as you do.
Me and my wife have been binging modern Who since Christmas and I was honestly surprised at how much I really enjoyed Daleks in Manhattan this re-watch
Thank you for the video, Vera! Despite the problems with the Doctor Who TV series during the Chris Chibnall's era, to give credit where credit is due, at least he and his writing team did try to make more historical episodes (if most of them were good or not is a different conversation).
I actually always liked Vampires of Venice. Rory is one of my all-time favourite companions, and it's his big fish-out-of-water (no pun intended) story trying to find his place in the Tardis crew dynamic that he fundamentally doesn't fit into but goes along with for Amy's sake. It's a goofy story, and yeah it could have been anywhere, but I think that's what it needed to be if it wasn't going to be something really emotionally heavy and uncomfortable (which could have been good but probably not with Moffat at the helm).
30:32 I know it's just a detail for THE ending but I love your ending sentence. The more you pause during the words the more eager I am to hear you SAY IT!!! JUST SAY I'M VALID !!
For me the only highlight of let’s kill hitler was that it was the first outfit change for the doctor in a season and a half since this was the halfway point through season 6 cause most of the episode was chasing down newly regenerated river song who didn’t know who she was
I would have put "Victory of the Daleks" (season 5, episode 3) on this list, merely for its "romanticized presentation" of Winston Churchill. I would have liked to have seen at least some acknowledgment of him being, shall we say, a complicated figure, for all of his standing up to the Nazis, he had some pretty terrible tendencies of his own. He was certainly not some kind of heroic figure without fault like the episode tends to paint him.
Sea Devils nearly made me stop watching Doctor Who. The enormous gaps between episodes made the pain worse. I had to chalk most of it up to Covid issues and the havoc it wrought on production in many other IPs I watch. The Covid excuse and the 2 cut episodes ruined Flux too.
I personally feel Legend of the Sea Devils is the worst ep Doctor Who has ever made. Painful viewing. The first time I've finished an episode and gone - wtf just happened? Nothing interesting or of substance.
Mary Shelley is not more important than Percy Shelley in literary influence, he is considered by many to be the best of the English Romantic poets of the 19th century. They worked in different fields and she is definitely bigger with the sci fi crowd but he's a titan on his own.
Only thing I liked about 'Legend of the Sea Devils'? Doctor - "Sea Devil!" S. D. "Land parasite!" Me "Oh, yeah, that's not their name!" If you can, get someone in the UK to send you the BBC Newswatch programme for 1st March 2024 (or 2nd March). You're not going to like it but you might should probably see it...
I'm going to get a LOT of pushback on this... but dammit, I LOVE Let's Kill Hitler. It always makes me laugh, but it also makes me cry, for all the wonderful scenes between The Doctor and River Song. It also sets up a critical plot device for the end of season 6 of thew new era.
I think the worst thing about bad historical is when they waste a historical figure. This is the reason I dislike Day of the Doctor as a historical, it really doesn’t do Elizabeth I justice and it limits her potential to be used again.
"Haunting of Villa Diodati". I only liked the visuals. The mansion😮I think the episodes that you quoted are not the worst. Orphan 55, the episodes with the Zygons, Orphan 55... Also, "Midnight"... Not because it was bad in a cinematographic way but because it's the only episode of Doctor Who I saw that made me very uncomfortable. The global energy, atmosphere was very similar to somekind of paranormal horror movie or something creepy like that.
One thing the historical setting of "Let's Kill Hitler" makes possible: Alex Kingston showing off her German. The way she deals with being thrown two of the (supposedly; as a native German speaker I can't really judge this) most difficult German words for English speakers to pronounce - "Reich" and "Führer" - and *absolutely* nails both made me look up her background. Sure enough, her mother was German, and my guess is that she grew up bilingual. Kudos for letting Kingston show that, but other than that, fully agreed that the episode kind of wastes its historical setting.
I don't think Vampires in Venice was forgettable because 1) it was the first time Rory got to be a companion (love Rory) 2) Helen McCrory's wonderful performance and 3) it was at the height of my Doctor Who fanboyhood. Also: Toby Whithouse (who wrote this ep) should have taken over as showrunner after Moffat left and I will never not be salty about it.
Someone wake me when they start doing pure historicals again. At this point, it would be novel. That or one with Mary Anning, because that episode write itself.
Daleks in manhattan could’ve been better if they had shown how a LOT of Americans supported fascism and the nazis prior to Pearl Harbor and tied that in with the fascistic nature of the daleks
I’m with you regarding Villa of Diodate. I’m not a fan of the Chibnall era, but my top 5 of that are Power of the Doctor, It Takes You Away, Eve of the Daleks, Fugitive of the Judoon, and The Ghost Monument. Villa falls somewhere in the nondescript range for me.
Re: Vampires of Venice: This episode was interesting because it's the only one that starts to explore the dynamic between the Doctor and Rory. And then it never really gets explored. It's dropped for the entire run. And the main fish woman plays off Matt Smith VERY well. Too bad the rest of it is so meh.
In regard to Time Travel in general, All shows and movies seem to steal agency from the creators. Classic Who implies H G Welles' was a plagariast on all his novels. Star Trek 4. Fiction at the Time, Transparent Aluminum, Did it get invented back in 1989 or Did a time traveller show the Creator transparent aluminum? It's real now supposedly.
Plagiarist is an incredibly strong (and slightly unfair) word. That would imply he came across a book of alien stories and photocopied it for later reference, as opposed to seeing a variety of sci fi stuff (too many things to list) all of which ended up in separate stories. This is called taking inspiration. HG Welles is almost a separate trope entirely, he often shows up in time travel shows, seeing stuff that inspires his stories. It’s almost an inside joke. Some of the stuff he portrayed was ahead of its time so it’s kind of a way to offer an explanation. I never saw the harm but I’m used to that sort of time travel joke. To say that shows belittle these real world figures or remove agency, feels weird to me.
A while back I gave someone a list of the best few episodes to watch if you don't watch anything else. I put Haunting of Villa Diodati on the list purely because she's a fan of Mary Shelley, with the note that this one isn't as good and is from a bad era. And I agree about Mary being the 'big name'. Everyone knows of Frankenstein. I couldn't name one thing that Percy wrote. The only reason anyone (outside of poetry circles) knows who he is today is that he's Mary's husband. Any yeah, everyone is important has always been his attitude.
I definitely disagree with you on The Witchfinders (quite an underrated story that I only have an issue with how the story resolves itself which is a bit... quick) and The Haunting of Villa Diodati (I don't think this story is disrespectful to Mary Shelley personally) but I can understand the other placements and your reasonings even if I enjoy some of those other stories like A Town Called Mercy and Vampires of Venice!
Good list 👍 the only one I’d change is Eaters of Light which I’d swap out for Victory of the Daleks. The actual episode itself is good but I hate the aggrandising of Churchill
I think it's high time we get an episode showing the bad side of Churchill, but seeing as he was voted Greatest Brit of the Millennium, I don't see any British writers (or the BBC) daring to do that.
I also dislike Haunting for the same reasons. There are very few things in history that are created by one individual or a few individuals, but sometimes there are great leaps, mostly of imagination, whether it be literature or mathematical concepts. To rob one of the few known creators of this while still doing the greeat men of history just rubs me the wrong way. (I also disliked the recent Isaac Newton open for related reasons, but that's a much longer tangent)
My apologies Vera, I reread what I wrote and it comes off as snide when it wasn't my intention. It's just the auto-subtitles skipped the word, and I wasn't sure if the algorithm would be tripped or something. My bad, I'm not sure how that stuff works. ❤ Listened to your Pay More, Get Less video earlier today and you mentioned something about not being able to say "Enshittification" without tripping the algo so I guess I lept when I should've looked. 🤐
I don’t disagree with the ending of idiots lantern being a bad story/message about abuse. However I understood that the conversation at the end of the episode is about the future, and they say the young boy is the future. When they tell him to go after his dad the message is that people like his father, who symbolise the soon-to -be defunct past, need to be welcomed in the new world too. There’s some stuff there about the impacts of the war and how his father was also harmed by the machismo patriarchal society that created him. There’s queer subtext too, pretty much confirmed by the writers saying they were going to make the boy character gay originally, and this hyper-masculine, aggressive father written up in the mid 2000s is a caricature of the roots of homophobia. The story, from that 2000s perspective,has the(subtextually) gay child inherit the unfortunate but somewhat inevitable burden of having to be the one to build the bridges for his father to cross, to educate him and welcome him to the future. I think it still wasn’t done great. It felt like they had a few ideas they failed to mash together, and the way they framed the husband was above and beyond the man of the house archetype and the implied physical violence is where they lost the ability to land this ending. But I still get it, I can see it being the product of a queer showrunner in the 2000s who most likely felt the responsibility thrust upon himself to educate and show patience to the people around him
A playlist of videos covering the issues with the BBC and transphobic reporting: th-cam.com/play/PLmWFOeT2jEofVIDW9X3OL7GqWuX3Dxopu.html
I still think, despite her daddy issues, it was really out of character for Rose to push the kid back into a relationship with his abuser. Like the man was cartoonishly evil the whole episode, no glimmer of a better man lurking beneath the surface. It feels completely one dimensional to have her be like "but he's your dad 🥺" at the end. I just don't buy it as a thing she would do.
She was also one of the most outspoken people against him. It was a weird 180. I've always assumed that whoever wrote it was in the process of sorting through "I hated my dad but now he's dead and I'm confused?" trauma
@@one_smol_duck Yeah it was definitely a weird choice!
Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks is severely underrated. There are surface-level positives worth mentioning: Andrew Garfield, Hugh Quarshie, the soundtrack, the fact it's the only Dalek story written by a woman, the Cult of Skaro, etc etc.
But what truly sets this episode apart is that it is very different from basically any other Dalek story we've had in New Who, and it isn't scared to deviate from what we've come to expect from a Dalek episode in order to tell a story that has a significant point to make. The union of Dalek Sec and Diagoras, two merciless and unempathetic individuals, creates a better person. The whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. The tragedy of Sec is that he was not only open to change, over the course of part 2 he actively transitions from a tyrant to a pacifist simply by observing the events playing out around him and reasoning that there is a better way. The hybrid is able to use the best aspects of both species - the Daleks' intelligence and Humanity's empathy - to strive for a better life for both species.
People criticise this episode for superficial reasons - bad accents, odd-looking monster designs, corny dialogue etc - without taking the time to scratch the surface and truly understand the point that Helen Raynor is trying to make. Doctor Who is a fundamentally silly show, but with fundamentally significant lessons to teach, and DiM/EotD is a perfect example of this. It's a homage to classic sci-fi B-Movies, filled with shouty metal aliens, pig monsters, a musical number, a brain man with phallic protrusions on his face, and bad American accents. But it's also a pure distillation of the arrogant xenophobia of the Daleks contrasted with the mercy and bravery of ordinary people.
It is for these reasons that DiM/EotD is my favourite Tennant-era Dalek story. It isn't just another 'Daleks invade Earth, blow stuff up, get wiped out' - it takes the time to dig deep into what makes the Daleks reprehensible, and contrasts that with the positive aspects of Humankind.
There are also tired-old criticisms of this story that I thought we were well past parroting as a fandom. But just to round off a few:
Q: Why do the Daleks cross people with pigs? A: Because pigs are readily available, intelligent, omnivorous and docile yet capable of violence when provoked. Crossing people with pigs creates an army of slaves that the Daleks can use for their own purposes, without needing to waste power or resources designing a new life form from scratch.
Q: Why do the Daleks want to fuse with humans? A: 3/4 of them don't. Sec is a visionary who sees past Dalek dogma and recognises the potential of Humankind. The rest of the Cult disagree, there's even a scene where they question him before his hybridisation and he has to argue his case, and then the rest of the Cult go on to betray him once the Hybrid becomes a pacifist.
Q: Why is the episode set in Manhattan? A: Manhattan in this era was a stark representation of the inequalities present in Human society, the horrendous juxtaposition of the conditions of the rich compared to the poor, and the heart of rapid industrialisation at the expense of Human lives that defined the early 20th century, it's ideal for paralleling how Humans of a lower-class are trodden on by the upper-class with how Daleks perceive themselves to be superior and all 'lesser' life forms as expendable - a fact that contributes to Sec's transition from tyrant to pacifist when Caan ruthlessly guns down Solomon, a man who Sec respects for representing the exact aspects of Humanity that he wanted to harness.
I'd honestly recommend rewatching this episode to those who haven't seen it in a while, it's great fun but it also has a cutting point to make that is still (sadly) just as relevant today, if not more so.
I agree whole heartedly. You should add that Sec looks that way when hybridised is because he has forcefully shoved his own body onto an unwilling host. He looks like a Dalek mutant planted on top of a regular guy's head because that’s literally what has happened. The others are just human hosts with dna being pumped into them.
Complaining that the designs look goofy is like complaining about the unrealistic medicine in Star Trek. It’s a feature, not a bug.
Yeah I never understood the hate for this two-parter, as a child I loved it and now as an adult I appreciate it even more. The Cult of Skaro are such a unique idea and brought a refreshing change to the Daleks in the stories they appear in, people say they’re getting bored of the Daleks but when they finally get a new coat of paint they complain that the Daleks are acting different.
Andrew Garfield actually ruined the episode for me lol. No one should have let that boy play someone "from Tennessee."
Thank you! I love this two-parter, and was heavily confused when I started getting involved in the online fandom and realised how widely disliked it was
Agree entirely. I love hearing people make a good, robust case for underrated stuff and you did it beautifully.
The most egregious about Let's Kill Hilter was to utterly fail to follow up on the emotional fallout of the last episode.
This! By the end of the episode we're just not meant to care that there is still a kidnapped baby out there somewhere. Because growing up with your daughter is totally the same as raising her. Amy and Rory should be furious and devastated but instead we just move on to the next adventure. Not to mention the Mel twist just doesn't work at all when she's a character who was only introduced in that episode and honestly only exists in that episode. She's never mentioned or seen before or after that episode so there's no weight or impact of discovering that she's really River.
Moffat almost made a habit of doing that, sadly. Into the Dalek brings up that the Doctor is still not over the destruction of his planet by the Daleks and that he sometimes acts more like a Dalek than actual Daleks...and it's not dealt with nor brought up again. Because we go straight to Robot of Sherwood. Why even do this if there's no plans to follow through? Its like nobody could decide if they wanted New Who to emaulate the original with it's strange stories with barely any overarching plot, or they wanted it do what modern shows do with plot arcs stretching over one or two seasons. So much of New Who feels, to me, confused.
That was always my problem. I was so hyped after Demons Run. Let’s Kill Hitler felt like a slap in the face that I dared to take this show seriously.
"That's a nice character for your Chinese pirate episode. Where's your source for this guy?"
"My source is I made him the f#ck up."
"Well. I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled, when I suddenly thought, “Gosh. The Third Reich’s a bit rubbish. I think I’ll kill the Führer.” Who’s with me?"
That gets quoted a lot in my friend group and I love Let's kill Hitler for that moment. The banter in this episode is just so fun overall.
Mentioning Idiot's Lantern again really reminds me of the new Color Purple musical movie, which I was going along with great for most of it...and then the last 20 minutes suddenly take a hard turn into literally giving a message of "Abuse victims will go to Hell if they don't forgive their abusers and become friendly with them." Maybe that's true to the book, I haven't read it, but I definitely don't remember it being in the Spielberg film, and you'd hope people doing an adaptation now would recognize that they should change it if that was the case.
Celie forgiving Mister for being an abusive husband happened in the Original Novel.
Spielberg was wise to cut that from the 80s adaptation.
As someone who just read the book, she forgives him. It has nothing to do with going to hell. She curses him. Like in the Spielberg film. But there is a decent chunk of book after that. His life falls apart and it takes a long time and a lot of making amends and she basically is just like I forgive you because I'm happy and I don't have space to hate you. Then she states pretty explicitly she's not into men they sort of become cool.
I don't love them becoming cool with each other but it was very realistic for the time period with more acceptance for Celie's sexuality.
I did actually dislike Haunting for precisely the reason you stated. As a Mary Shelley fan, I HATED that she was so disrespected. I didn't like that the servants got slaughtered and no one cared. The only thing I liked was the costuming. Seriously. I didn't even like the half cyber dude because I thought he was super angsty and melodramatic. So, I agree with you on pretty much the whole list. I had actually forgotten completely about some of them. XD
Have you listened to any Big Finish Audio Dramas with the 8th Doctor where Mary Shelley travels with him as a Companion?
Daleks in Manhattan / Evolution of the Daleks is my favourite modern dalek story... whoops!
Yikes
I find "A Town Called Mercy" much more enjoyable if you imagine that it's the backstory to the simulation Kryten's playing in _Red Dwarf's_ "Gunmen of the Apocalypse".
I think Vampires of Venice is pretty underrated. I love the settings and the costumes and I really like how they play with the idea of vampires.
i liked a town called mercy :(
It's one of 11's best in his last season. It's the Historial Element I guess why it's here?!!!
Edit: I was Right
i rather enjoyed this one as well.
So underrated
That scene with the Doctor and Amy is incredible. I've rewatched it just for that scene.
I also really liked it. It ends up a bit to quickly in my opinion but definitly not a bad episode.
IMO the criticism of LKH as “not engaging with the historical setting” is off base because, while it may not deal with historical detail about the makeup of society in 1930s Germany, it is absolutely ABOUT our modern society’s relationship to stories set in Nazi era Germany - to the point that I don’t think you could necessarily set it anywhere else. It’s a story about how ludicrous attempts to do “SF time travel plot with Hitler” inherently are, through critiquing the logic of the Tesselecta being a punishment machine that goes back in time and decides to hurt people who are already dead for the things they did that made the Tesselecta want to go back and punish them in the first place. The Doctor outright mocks their logic and points out how ridiculous this is; and Hitler is the archetypal “if you could go back in time and kill X…” thought experiment - you kinda HAVE to do it with him. But more cleverly still, of course, is that it’s relevant thematically to the rest of the season. Going back down a person’s timeline to kill them before they do the acts you disapprove of … is exactly what Kovarian and the Silence are trying to do to the Doctor throughout the Smith era, especially S6.
I also disagree with the assessment of Eaters of Light as forgettable and as not doing anything with its setting. It riffs quite a lot on Pictish mythology in multiple forms, there’s the depiction of Roman imperialism and what they do to the lands they conquer, there’s the idea of challenging modern audiences about the sexual identities of the ancient world, and there’s a rerun of the Zygon Inversion conflict between two sides which uses the unique potential of different languages and the TARDIS’ lip-sync translation circuit to prompt us to think about communication in conflict and what our war rhetoric sounds like.
Speaking as an historian, I love let’s Kill Hitler. It’s Moffat showing why time travel plots about killing Hitler are ridiculous, and then he spins it into a 1930s style farce with River being a gay icon. It’s an insane episode but I think that makes it work.
Gay icon? How so? (I think I really need to do a rewatch, I feel like I missed something cool about one of my fave characters 😮)
I'm not a historian, but River's line about attending a gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled absolves this episode of any sins.
The episode lost me where they implied killing the Doctor was worse than being Hitler. It also did that obnoxious Moffat Holmes thing with the constant "oh but really" back and forth between River and the Doctor. I also really didn't like the way they incorporated River and the additional fake-human mechanism...overall I just don't like that episode. I agree the above positives are there, but they're overwhelmed by the negatives for me.
@@Stile4alydamn so did the Kingsman film steal that? Still I love the line to the fanatical religious woman. I'm a Catholic wh*** enjoying congress out of wedlock with my black Jewish boyfriend who works in a military abortion clinic. So hail Satan and have a wonderful afternoon.
Best line in all of Dr Who was in that episode. And River said it. "Well. I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled, when I suddenly thought, “Gosh. The Third Reich’s a bit rubbish. I think I’ll kill the Führer.” Who’s with me?"
Surprised Rosa didn't make the list
As a Scottish person, the idea of setting a story based around the legend of the singing mountains is such a fun idea, tying it to The Lost Legion to create a fascinating sci-fi answer to both mysteries. It should be treated similarly to Agatha Christie's disappearance in "The Unicorn and the Wasp" In my mind, no real historical message to be found just Doctor Who having fun in answering a famous (all be it to Scotland) mystery. On another note, I always thought there was an incredibly important reason why "A Town Called Mercy" is a Western. It's because it's CALLED MERCY. A pre "Day of the Doctor" Doctor has to look at an Alian Doctor, one who committed genocide to win a war, banished himself to earth, and uses the humans he picked up as his emotional support pets, showing them incredible futuristic technology to wow them into liking him and in spite of all that, become the sheriff of mercy and rally mercy to protect and save him, thus proving to himself he's still worth something. If you want a historical fact to bolster the narrative the incredible sense of community small towns must have had to survive the lesser arias of America should surface, but does it need that to be a good episode? I guess one question for you is what counts as not "utilizing" a setting well and does it need to? Don't get me wrong I love a lot of your takes but you use this argument a lot in this video when I think it could be made more clear. I would argue that "Fires of Pompeii" like a "Town Called Mercy", does nothing with its historical setting bar set the stage for a moral battle between characters. Mount Vesuvius is only pertinent to the story enough to give The Doctor and Donna a moral battle, and The Mob Mentality of Mercy is only pertinent to the story enough to give The Doctor a moral quandary. Why are these different? On the opposite standpoint, you've gone on record saying episodes like Robots of Sherwood and Curse of the Black Spot are guilty favorites. They have little to no actual historical information bar the fake depictions of highwaymen and pirates found in modern media. (Sidebar you're the reason I now LOVE Robots of Sherwood) Why do they get a pass? If a historical setting is only there to bolster the individual characters instead of giving any real historical context, is an episode any lesser for it and is this a bias we give historicals because we expect them to depict known facts of the past accurately that we forget all episodes of Doctor Who are fictional. Any historical setting is by definition fake the same way Satellite Five or Demons Run is?
Could not agree more with your take on the ending of idiots lantern. It's more than just fumbling the messaging, It's damnright irresponsible the way it was framed. Anyone who's ever been a victim of emotional and/or physical abuse will know how thoughtless that ending is
14:00 Tbh I think it does work a bit better since it displays River's initial perspective on time travel and how it is _so_ different from The Doctor. With 20 years of planning and anticipation, her very first thought is quite simple, the classic "go back in time and kill Hitler" cliche. I wouldn't really consider it a "historical" episode, but rather the historical aspect is simply because of the out-of-universe cliche. River has had 20+ years to think on this and has never once considered the danger to the fabric of time or anything. Sure, she doesn't know the specifics, but this gives us insight into how she thinks about things, because people who have never seen Doctor Who in real life discuss this and bring up the paradox problems it creates. River does not think about that or care. She's a bull in a china shop of the laws of time. It pairs extremely well with the Time Lord Victorious stuff with Ten, because it shows that she's starting from that perspective. The mere possession of the ability to travel in space and time, even stolen, is enough for her to instantly view it from the perspective of "I can, I will, I'm in charge".
Using "kill Hitler" is simply the easiest shorthand for this entire concept. Morally, if not for all the paradox problems, it would be a heroic act. However, it shows the person doing it doesn't understand or respect how time works and flows. Without any of Doctor Who's specific names or rules regarding these things, we all recognize how the Nazis are even in real life, a fixed point in time. You can't meddle with that even if you have the ability because not only does it create a time paradox of you having no reason to do it if you do it, but also if you were born after WW2 you are guaranteed to be temporally aborting yourself, everyone else born after WW2, and so much more. Going back in time to kill Hitler is easy shorthand for "this person is a heroic killer, but also an idiot who has no idea what the hell they're doing". Like Deadpool.
The setting and everything _does_ serve the plot, but the plot isn't about the setting. It's about establishing River's starting point and how she's developed from her time with The Doctor and her parents after/before this, showing River Song's devil-may-care personality at its core without any of the education or growth that's forced her to be smarter. She grows from "I'm going to blow up the entire fabric of space and time because I don't understand any of that despite it being a thing most people can intuit on their own" to her "spoilers" thing, and it makes sense because her personality hardly suggests that she's the type who would naturally be cautious or wise about obeying the laws of time.
Basically, it serves to show us the core of River Song, without any of the growth or education she'll later have. It's River's worst and best personality traits on display at full force without any of the filtering that later knowledge and experience will give it. It shows us her true self using a classic time travel cliche, a heroic killer who acts first and thinks later.
This is exactly why I think it’s such an underrated episode.
Very well said.
How so many people seem to miss that the title of the episode isn't literal, and is referring to the moral/ethical philosophical question, blows my mind.
The guy who plays the child in idiots lantern is now a full time youtuber lol
Watched it back a year ago and couldnt believe it 🤣 sure he got throttled on eastenders too
Between that and the kid who designed the Absorbaloff being a TH-camr I’m starting to notice a pattern.
Eaters of the Light is one of my favorite episodes of doctor who ever. It makes me cry.
Idk Im weak.
Theres the who thing with missy and how she doesnt get it and how the doctor is like “you never listen to the music.
Its a good bill episode and I love bill
Also It does my favorite thing where the ending sucker punches to the beginning with the girl and the hill and the music and the ghosts
Also that the crows used to talk all the time and the doctor is like, they don’t dont anymore because their crabby, but we learn they are actually just remembering Karns sacrifice forever
It wasn't a perfect episode, but the way Bill gets her assumptions handed to her, and the scene with Missy at the end is incredible. Even the point that war--especially war of this period--was made so much worse because the two sides didn't speak a common language. More was good about it than bad, IMO.
I actually love the ending of that episode and the moment between Missy and The Doctor
Honestly, put haunting of Villa Diodatti wherever. But my poor baby, Eaters of Light? She is beautiful and underrated. Shout out to Eaters of Light!
I just wish they'd thought to take out the scene of Bill realizing the TARDIS is translating for her after it was moved to so much later in the season, so now it looks like she'd just been assuming the whole time the aliens really were speaking English.
I liked Eaters of Light because it was so small-scale and felt like a nice break from Moffat’s typical “the world is going to end” episodes during his era. And I think it ties in well with Twelve’s running storyline vis a vis soldiers, since a big part of the ep is realizing that all the soldiers on both sides are really just children.
Thank you for explaining why the ending of Idiot's Lantern strikes such a wrong note. It had bothered me too, but not for any reason I could put my finger on until now. Writers of historical fiction don't have carte blanche to ignore present-day sensibilities for the sake of period detail; quite the opposite, they have a responsibility to show why things needed to change and examine whether or not they've changed for the better.
Well said. People will often defend things as "historically accurate," but you can make a historically accurate thing without the narrative voice framing the bad things as fine. All the characters can suck and have historically accurate bad takes without the narrative condoning it. Well people who make these sorts of excuses won't be able to pull it off, if they can't see the difference.
The abuse issue in Idiot's Lantern wasn't really related to the historical context (If I recall the way it was dealt with and approached by the historical characters does feel like something that was more normalized in that era, so maybe a little), but you get the same sort of thing with abuse narratives.
Vera "number two is my favorite/least favorite" Wylde
Thank you for this channel, and I genuinely loved this episode. This is the first full length video of you I've watched, and I love your intensity, and willingness to give your opinions even if they might be unpopular.
What I mostly love about your channel is *you*, and the steps you've take to be your truth. I'm old and cynical, but getting to see your fearless discussions of the reality is genuinely comforting and inspiring.
Your closing is really sweet, and offered some much-needed comfort.
Thank you again for this channel.
Empress of Mars: counting this as a historical seems dubious. I like it, but it's iffy. Feels more like an honorable mention.
Witchfinders: Alan Cummings, a good setting and an evil tree. This was a fun romp. A little bit of history, a little bit of characterization and some mad sci-fi ideas.
Let's kill Hitler: A title in search of a story. Basically a collection of bits, setting up the coming season, none of which really come together to make an actual story or even something that stands on its own.
Some bits are fun, but as a whole, it's a mess.
Eaters of light: New Who is not good at one off monsters and as soon as the demon dogs show up, this episode gets blah.
Legend of the sea devils: again, I love a romp. Monsters vs Pirates.
I forgive some flaws as they were filming during a pandemic.
Plus, I hate putting the Doctor in a romance, but 13 and Yaz are the best one.
That was the whole issue with the Moffat era come to think of, great ideas, but kinda wasted in the execution
Absolutely. IMO, I think Moffat sorta got there in the end. Maybe not in plot/stories, but definitely character. It wasn’t perfect by any means, but at least he was able to craft characters w/ a little more depth than a stereotype/fantasy lmao
And Chris Chibnall did it even worse...
I don't think Mary shelly being inspired by the events of that episode isn't something I considered as a problem but the doctor saving Percy because he's too important seemed incredibly undoctor like
That's the issue I had with Jodie Whittacker's Doctor, is that she was wildly inconsistent. And much of what she did felt unlike the character I knew.
I read it as the Doctor refusing to sacrifice one person, because everyone is important. In his case he's a figure of history that has to be preserved, and he is an artist, and art should be preserved. The Doctor upholding the laws of time over potentially meddling for the greater good is what the Doctor has always done.
Percy Shelly isn’t even the most important/famous artist in the room and therefore it seems like it’s only fair to let him die, for the greater good. The only one who stands up for him is the Doctor and that is exactly what the Doctor would do.
@@intergalactic92 oh yeah standing up for one lone person like that is very doctor like but the reasoning is the issue. It really didn't come across as an everyone is important thing
Easy guess that The Idiot's Lantern would be so high. The top spot was just a nothing episode for me, but you made good points that it was worse than a nothing episode. Funny that the two to sideline important historical women are from the Chibnall era.
I kind of love the absolute mess that is Let's Kill Hitler. It's not good, at all, but I have a lot of affection for its arbitrary contrivances and camp.
I'm a victim of an abusive father and that makes #2 even harder to watch. So yes I agree with your list and your reasons and I was really abused. I was hit on my head with a pipe and my hair pulled on and that's not all. I don't like to talk about it and I don't like to see it in my entertainment. And this is triggering me just typing about it. But to defend Rose she never got to spend as much time with her dad as she wanted and I can see that but it's not right. I love doctor who and I've been a fan since the 70s but some episodes are just really hard to watch
Like she said in the video, it makes sense for Rose as a character. The problem was everything else around it, the tone set, the doctor not saying anything, framed it as a good thing as well.
@@lexihopes I agree but it's still hard for me to watch
It’s funny. Ben Browder was the one American to star in Farscape as it shot in Australia. He guest stars on Doctor Who at a time where American guest stars are basically nonexistent and continue to be so for SIX years.
I dont care how historically accurate or meaningful it was, Town Called Mercy is AMAZING
This is my WORST 10,
10. The Unquiet Dead
Ghosts trying to be scary, and failing.
9. The Unicorn and the Wasp
Whose idea was it to combine a storyline about giant killer wasps with one about Agatha Christie?
8. Demons of the Punjab
A painfully slow retelling of the plot of Twice Upon a Time.
7. The Idiot's Lantern
The television zapping away people's faces would have been a terrified concept, if it weren't undercut by the laughable cartoonish villain.
6. The Eaters of Light
The only bad episode of series 10. But it is quite bad.
5. The Vampires of Venice
Should have been called "The Fishmen of Venice".
4. The Woman Who Lived
Clara and Me are two of the most poorly written characters in New Who, and yet we get stuck with them for the entirety of this episode with basically nothing else happening. Oh joy.
3. The Shakespeare Code
This episode genuinely infuriates me. Between the Doctor casually tossing aside Martha's fears about racism, him stanning for JK, and him friendzoning Martha so hard, 10 really does come across as a massive douche. And yet he is framed as the hero... ugh.
2. Legend of the Sea Devils
If Chibnall told us he finished the script for this in a day, I'd believe him.
1. Lets Kill Hitler
Hate the premise, hate the retconning of Amy now apparently having a friend she had never mentioned before, hate the two dimension depiction of River, hate the "action" sequences, hate the obvious Doctor death fake out, hate River needing to exhaust her entire regeneration cycle to save the Doctor... pretty much hate the whole damn episode.
My girlfriend is a big fan of classic mysteries but also has a phobia of wasps. She was legit mad at me for _getting get into Doctor Who at all_ when we got to that episode 😭. Also, Shakespeare Code came out in 2007. I agree that it's a bad episode but you can hardly blame it for endorsing Harry Potter. Rowling hadn't started with her terf nonsense and it was generally considered a progressive series at the time.
Unquiet Dead is very mid for me but holds a special place as the theatre scenes were filmed were I work! 😂 Same acc applies to New Earth, but…erm, anyway!
Genuinely surprised that Victory of the Daleks didn't make the list anywhere. It's best ideas are both warmed over and underused, giving the Doctor such a strange extended relationship with Churchill is bizarre, and while I'd say its only a historical for the visual of biplanes vs spaceships, that would suggest there's a greater point to the episode than that. As an episode overall it's weaker than most of the list, I think, and I feel it benefits even less from its nature as a historical than the likes of Let's Kill Hitler or A Town Called Mercy.
I guessed that The Eaters of light - The hunting of Haunting of Villa Diodati and The idiot lantern would be on this list - I deserve a cookie.
If historical accuracy is a factor in ranking these things, then Robot of Sherwood is easily the worst historical episode of Doctor Who ever made. That said, Let's Kill Hitler is probably THE worst episode of Doctor Who ever made, so...
Also, if you want to talk about insulting and dangerous historical narratives: Victory of the Daleks, and its lionisation of racist, concentration camp advocate and war criminal Winston Churchill is a fairly serious one (though, of course, by no means unique to Who given how British culture refuses to acknowledge the man's crimes and puts him on our fucking money).
I quite enjoyed The Eaters Of Light myself, but one thing that I can’t help but fault it it on is that they missed a golden opportunity to cast Karen Gillan as the Pict leader and establish that Amy’s resemblance to her and to the soothsayer from Fires Of Pompeii (who’s clairvoyance is attributed to “a rift in time”) was down to the same “spatial genetic multiplicity” (caused by The Cardiff Rift) that caused Gwen Cooper to resemble Gwyneth from The Unquiet Dead.
I don't love "The Haunting", though I do disagree with the whole "being disrespectful to Mary Shelley" thing. The trope of "let's use a historical figure and invent a sci-fi reason to serve as their inspiration for a story has been done a lot. They did it with Charles Dickens, they did it with Shakespeare, Van Gogh, etc. Honestly, I was terrified watching "Rosa" thinking they'd do something stupid like that which THANKFULLY they kept their distance. I guess you could argue that in those cases, they met up with them in the middle of their careers, but I don't think it's that fundamentally different.
As for "The Idiot's Lantern", I get what they were trying to do with that ending. Family is important, and I can see an argument that the father may not have ALWAYS been like that. He actually seems not monstrous in the opening scene before their nana has her face stolen. Perhaps the crisis pushed him to do things they never thought possible.
But in the rest of the episode, he becomes such a cartoonish irredeemable prick that it's impossible to feel sympathetic for him. And yes, no matter what circumstances may have led him there, they don't excuse his actions which were textbook abuse. He does not deserve an olive branch, especially when he hasn't done anything at all to redeem his actions
There is a MASSIVE difference between what was done to Mary Shelly and how the show handled Van Gogh, Shakespeare, or Dickens. In those cases they were all established already and it’s only implied that the events of the show influenced a single work of many. Mary Shelly (despite deserving far more notice for her work outside of Frankenstein) is ultimately known for just the one thing: and that’s the thing the show implied she didn’t think of.
I'd agree with most of these, especially your number one pic. I was looking forward to Legend of the Sea Devils. The Sea Devils and Silurians are my favourite DW monsters. I've lost count of how many times I've watched Doctor Who and the Silurians, The Sea Devils and even Warriors of the Deep (not the best episode, but it has it's moments.) Honestly, so many of Jon Pertwee's stories have engaging storylines and sincere messages about humanity and I love them. Legend of the Sea Devils had absolutely none of that.
I actually really like the series 3 Dalek 2-parter, specifically because it's one of the few times in new-who the Daleks have felt like actual characters, as opposed to mindless robots that shout exterminate constantly. Sec's whole revelation about evolving the Dalek race, the rest of the cult of Skaro rejecting it and plotting and scheming behind Sec's back and betraying him, unable to let go of the basic Dalek ideology, which in the end leads to their destruction. The scene of, I think it's Khan and Thay, talking about Dalek Sec is one of the best character moments for the Daleks in the revived series, just that small moment of Khan looking around to see if anyone's listening before answering Thay's question. It also may not amount to much, but I do like the setting and the kind of atmosphere it lends to certain scenes. Maybe it's because of the scenes of the Daleks experimenting and conversing in a way that isn't just "SEEK! LOCATE! EXTERMINATE!", or maybe it's just because of how badly the Dalek's were treated by Moffat, that makes me really appreciate Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks.
I like that "Let's Kill Hitler" doesn't treat the "last moment of life punishment" idea at all seriously.
Watching this reminded me of an episode of Touched By An Angel that I never saw when I was young, but for the first time saw now, and it has stuck with me for all the wrong reasons. It positively INFURIATED me in SO many ways.
The episode focused on two brothers living with their uncle in a poor neighborhood. The uncle was never home at night and slept all day. He had a vicious dog. The uncle cared nothing for the kids at all, to the point where they had little to no food in the house, and he would punish them if they tried to eat any of what they did have. Meanwhile, the older brother abused his younger brother just as badly. The younger brother finds a gym and starts boxing. He idolizes Muhammad Ali without knowing much about his personal struggles. The older brother gets meningitis, and when he comes out of the hospital he is confined to a wheelchair. The uncle still refuses to take care of either boy, and it's revealed that he starves the dog for the sole purpose of fighting in matches. The dog dies shortly after the younger brother actually feeds the starving dog, and the dog doesn't fight as well in the match which costs him his life. The uncle gets a new dog and proceeds to treat the dog the same as the other one.
The younger brother finally is forced by the angels to confront his home life. They bring Muhammad Ali himself, who had in real life just suffered a stroke, to "talk" to him, when in reality it is the angel Tess who does the talking FOR him because Muhammad Ali was barely able to speak at all. The younger brother goes home and tells his uncle, because the angels TOLD him that the family MUST STAY TOGETHER, that things are going to change.
This uncle should have been ARRESTED for ANIMAL AND CHILD ABUSE. The kids should have been placed in foster care and the dog should have been placed in a shelter for proper care. Instead these "angels," who do "God's work," basically sent a message to this poor kid that, while physical fights are not necessary to defend against abuse, "love" is more important than anything and it is the key to improving quality of life, even if the anguish of the sheer MEMORY of the abuse turns out to be more problematic than the breakup of this "family." The angels privately warn the uncle that they'll keep watch over the kids to ensure they're being properly looked after.
From the disgusting prop-use of Muhammad Ali to the complete and utter ignoring of the animal abuse and the ACTUAL CRIMES committed there, to telling the abuse victims that "Your ABUSER NEEDS YOU to STAY with him cause otherwise HIS life will become a downward spiral, and GOD dosn't want that; God LOVES you but ONLY if you STAY with your abuser, because the unit of a family is more important than your RELATIONSHIP with them" I can't believe this episode got on the air, let alone that Muhammad Ali would have put up with this disgusting story. The angel Monica was undercover as a SOCIAL WORKER for God's sake! I guess being an angel made her immune to following the laws of this country, where you are REQUIRED to REPORT abuse.
OMFG, this pissed me off.
I can't even remember the episode you talked about, if I've ever seen it, but I'm sure I would feel the same way that you do. The Doctor would never have allowed that boy to go back to his abuser, and the Doctor would have CERTAINLY have had some strong words to Rose for that.
Makes my blood boil.
Before seeing it, just the thumbnail, it looks like you'll be crapping on Eaters of Light
Am I the only one that didn't hate this episode?
I don’t hate it but I literally forgot about when I did a ranking of every modern era episode a little while back. It’s the only one I forgot.
Ways to improve Legend of the Sea Devils:
-Give some color and a more "Chinese alligator scute" texture, and remove the whites of the eyes (and make them more oval)...and maybe a "spoonbill" element for the mouth
-Rather than an absurd jump, have the flying ship drop a rope
-Hide the Hua-Shen a little better at the start so it's spookier, and improve it's looks/textures for the built-up reveal
-Zheng Yi Sao & her second husband (Zheng Bao) had policies for protecting women from mistreatment (maybe genderswap Ying Ki to let this show, and have Madam Ching adopt her at the end) and distributing wealth equally (they also banned invading friendly towns, which could have been something she adopts as a policy at the end of the story)
-Replace the fictional "Sin Ji-Hun" with someone like the legendary "Jang Bogo" (a Korean maritime leader who rose from commoner roots, fought to end slavery, and was so influential in 700's Korean politics as to play Kingmaker during a rebellion)
As a history nerd I don't really mind most of them, Idiots Lantern and Crimson Horror are the only one's that I take much issue with. They're easily the highlight of the Whittaker era, though Haunting does sit in a weird space currently where I enjoy it but some frustrating choices make it more of a guilty pleasure rather than a story I could confidently say I enjoy.
I'll never get bored of hearing you rant about that Idiot's Lantern ending 😂
That's a fair point against Villa Deodati. It's the same reason I hated the film "Saving Mr. Banks", it all but shouted that PL Travers just copied the Mary Poppins character from her childhood nanny
Oh, no, Eaters of Light is in fourth place! But, that's okay. It's your list, and no one else's, and I agree with every other placement, especially about Mary Shelley. The fact that Frankenstein was likely at least partially inspired by the birth of her stillborn baby, and her husband's horrified reaction, makes it even more insulting.
Also, you like pirates, Merphy Napier likes pirates, any chance of a crossover where you get to geek out about pirates together? 😁
I haven't seen the Haunting of Villa Diodati because I have an attachment to Mary Shelley so your review has saved me heart break in future 😅
OH WOW. I love series 10, especially for what it is in the Doctor’s story and the companions are fun together with him (let alone how Bill and Nardole, but Eaters of Light and Empress of Mars are my two biggest attention losers pre-Chibnall. I had no memory of what these episodes did after their original airings and one HBO Max binge, and because of my ADHD I wasn’t sure if it was a me thing or if it was the fault of the episodes. And frankly now 4 months removed from a second rewatch, and seeing your opinion and a response I got earlier from bringing this up on a different video, it really just feels like they weren’t good episodes to begin with and bored me. And frankly for them to be the bridge between the Monks trilogy and the finale sucks even more that it’s just a black hole between two better parts of the season.
I tried to get people to gush about these episodes in Facebook group posts and most of the praises were for the general season.
Right up to the end, I was expecting _Victory of the Daleks_ to win, for whitewashing that war criminal Churchill.
Andrew Garfield being in Daleks in Manhattan is literally the only thing that I remembered about the episode before watching this video. 😂
The worst part of A Town Called Mercy was that it was part of a season with 2 episodes that were crying out to be 2-parters (The Angels Take Manhattan and The Power of Three), but instead of making one of those stories better, we got this boring one
I agree with the vast majority of this list. The two that I would make cases for are Eaters of Light and Witch Finders. For Eaters, I would say a huge point in its favour is that Bill is the driving force for going to the setting. She is arguing for the lost legion and wants to prove The Doctor wrong. For Witch, it is telling the story of these women who were killed for thinking differently and the conflict that wrought in families. King James is a cherry on top. He doesn't have to be there and that takes nothing away.
Ultimately, these two stories are just both comfort Who for me.
I like how there are near future episodes that would now be historical to a new viewer.
Am I the only one who actually likes Evolution of the Daleks? I really love the side characters we're introduced to and the notion of Hooverville being in the shadow of the Empire State Building. Also the idea that the daleks stagnating forced them to want to change is fascinating to think about. Is it a perfect episode? No. But its one that I find myself enjoying more with every rewatch.
Apparently Empress of Mars was supposed to have Winston Churchill, and Ian McNiece was really looking forward to it, but ultimately they just couldn't figure out a way to fit him in.
Personally I don’t find anything wrong telling a story, that could be told in the present time, in a historical setting. The Doctor has a Time Machine so why not have episodes like Kill Hitler, that mainly is Rivers origin story set in the 30s instead of the present or future? With a Time Machine why not utilise all of history to tell stories that isn’t period bound.
But I do agree that the historical characters like James 1, Mary Shelley etc should do be better utilised, factually correct (except for the SCIFY stuff) and contribute to the story and not just be there because of the time period.
Percy Shelley adulterated Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with that absolute waffle at the beginning of the book about Frankenstein's adopted sister that honestly made my brain switch off.
Very good points. I still like Villa Diodati and Legend of the Sea Devils, but anyway, they do have problems.
Nothing to say about the Idiot's Lantern, I probably hate it as much as you do.
Me and my wife have been binging modern Who since Christmas and I was honestly surprised at how much I really enjoyed Daleks in Manhattan this re-watch
Thank you for the video, Vera!
Despite the problems with the Doctor Who TV series during the Chris Chibnall's era, to give credit where credit is due, at least he and his writing team did try to make more historical episodes (if most of them were good or not is a different conversation).
While Frankenstein became very well acclaimed in the 20th century, Percy Shelley was in fact far more influential than Mary.
My cousin got me a t-shirt for Christmas with that A Christmas Carol quote on it above an entire rainbow of TARDISes.
I actually always liked Vampires of Venice. Rory is one of my all-time favourite companions, and it's his big fish-out-of-water (no pun intended) story trying to find his place in the Tardis crew dynamic that he fundamentally doesn't fit into but goes along with for Amy's sake. It's a goofy story, and yeah it could have been anywhere, but I think that's what it needed to be if it wasn't going to be something really emotionally heavy and uncomfortable (which could have been good but probably not with Moffat at the helm).
30:32 I know it's just a detail for THE ending but I love your ending sentence. The more you pause during the words the more eager I am to hear you SAY IT!!! JUST SAY I'M VALID !!
No objections here about Haunting of Villa Diodati, I might have even put it higher
For me the only highlight of let’s kill hitler was that it was the first outfit change for the doctor in a season and a half since this was the halfway point through season 6 cause most of the episode was chasing down newly regenerated river song who didn’t know who she was
I would have put "Victory of the Daleks" (season 5, episode 3) on this list, merely for its "romanticized presentation" of Winston Churchill. I would have liked to have seen at least some acknowledgment of him being, shall we say, a complicated figure, for all of his standing up to the Nazis, he had some pretty terrible tendencies of his own. He was certainly not some kind of heroic figure without fault like the episode tends to paint him.
Sea Devils nearly made me stop watching Doctor Who. The enormous gaps between episodes made the pain worse. I had to chalk most of it up to Covid issues and the havoc it wrought on production in many other IPs I watch. The Covid excuse and the 2 cut episodes ruined Flux too.
The only thing I remember about the eaters of light is the doctor in a cave that’s it
I personally feel Legend of the Sea Devils is the worst ep Doctor Who has ever made. Painful viewing. The first time I've finished an episode and gone - wtf just happened? Nothing interesting or of substance.
I disliked the Demons of the Punjab, it didn't need the aliens.
Doctor Who: Percy Shelly!
Me: F*cking who??? This is BS.
Years later --- Vera: This is such BS!
me: oh... Who tf is Percy Shelly?
I think the episode is called the Black spot with Amy and Rory of the pirate ship I’m surprised that’s not on any list
Vera loves Pirates. But it's Mid Tier Historical
Mary Shelley is not more important than Percy Shelley in literary influence, he is considered by many to be the best of the English Romantic poets of the 19th century. They worked in different fields and she is definitely bigger with the sci fi crowd but he's a titan on his own.
Only thing I liked about 'Legend of the Sea Devils'?
Doctor - "Sea Devil!"
S. D. "Land parasite!"
Me "Oh, yeah, that's not their name!"
If you can, get someone in the UK to send you the BBC Newswatch programme for 1st March 2024 (or 2nd March). You're not going to like it but you might should probably see it...
I'm going to get a LOT of pushback on this... but dammit, I LOVE Let's Kill Hitler. It always makes me laugh, but it also makes me cry, for all the wonderful scenes between The Doctor and River Song. It also sets up a critical plot device for the end of season 6 of thew new era.
I’ve only watched one episode of Doctor Who 🥰 Still watched the whole video lol
I think the worst thing about bad historical is when they waste a historical figure. This is the reason I dislike Day of the Doctor as a historical, it really doesn’t do Elizabeth I justice and it limits her potential to be used again.
It's not meant to be a Historical Episode, for the Figure or Setting.
"Haunting of Villa Diodati". I only liked the visuals. The mansion😮I think the episodes that you quoted are not the worst. Orphan 55, the episodes with the Zygons, Orphan 55... Also, "Midnight"... Not because it was bad in a cinematographic way but because it's the only episode of Doctor Who I saw that made me very uncomfortable. The global energy, atmosphere was very similar to somekind of paranormal horror movie or something creepy like that.
None of those are historical episodes. Except arguably Day of the Doctor, if you’re lumping that in with “Zygon episodes.”
@@CouncilofGeeks Oh yeah I did not pay attention that your list was only about historical episodes. So forget my commentary😏
One thing the historical setting of "Let's Kill Hitler" makes possible: Alex Kingston showing off her German. The way she deals with being thrown two of the (supposedly; as a native German speaker I can't really judge this) most difficult German words for English speakers to pronounce - "Reich" and "Führer" - and *absolutely* nails both made me look up her background. Sure enough, her mother was German, and my guess is that she grew up bilingual.
Kudos for letting Kingston show that, but other than that, fully agreed that the episode kind of wastes its historical setting.
I was so sure "Rosa" was going to make this list, given your feelings about it. I'm surprised.
I’m far more conflicted about that one than the stuff on here.
I don't think Vampires in Venice was forgettable because 1) it was the first time Rory got to be a companion (love Rory) 2) Helen McCrory's wonderful performance and 3) it was at the height of my Doctor Who fanboyhood.
Also: Toby Whithouse (who wrote this ep) should have taken over as showrunner after Moffat left and I will never not be salty about it.
Someone wake me when they start doing pure historicals again. At this point, it would be novel. That or one with Mary Anning, because that episode write itself.
Daleks in manhattan could’ve been better if they had shown how a LOT of Americans supported fascism and the nazis prior to Pearl Harbor and tied that in with the fascistic nature of the daleks
I’m with you regarding Villa of Diodate.
I’m not a fan of the Chibnall era, but my top 5 of that are Power of the Doctor, It Takes You Away, Eve of the Daleks, Fugitive of the Judoon, and The Ghost Monument.
Villa falls somewhere in the nondescript range for me.
I’d forgotten Legends of the Sea Devils was a historical…. That’s my forgettable episode apparently.
Re: Vampires of Venice: This episode was interesting because it's the only one that starts to explore the dynamic between the Doctor and Rory. And then it never really gets explored. It's dropped for the entire run. And the main fish woman plays off Matt Smith VERY well. Too bad the rest of it is so meh.
Surprisingly surprising list, half of these definitely don't deserve to be in the bottom 10
In regard to Time Travel in general, All shows and movies seem to steal agency from the creators. Classic Who implies H G Welles' was a plagariast on all his novels. Star Trek 4. Fiction at the Time, Transparent Aluminum, Did it get invented back in 1989 or Did a time traveller show the Creator transparent aluminum? It's real now supposedly.
Plagiarist is an incredibly strong (and slightly unfair) word. That would imply he came across a book of alien stories and photocopied it for later reference, as opposed to seeing a variety of sci fi stuff (too many things to list) all of which ended up in separate stories. This is called taking inspiration.
HG Welles is almost a separate trope entirely, he often shows up in time travel shows, seeing stuff that inspires his stories. It’s almost an inside joke. Some of the stuff he portrayed was ahead of its time so it’s kind of a way to offer an explanation. I never saw the harm but I’m used to that sort of time travel joke. To say that shows belittle these real world figures or remove agency, feels weird to me.
@intergalactic92 maybe it is a bit strong but the episode does imply he had no original ideas of his own.
A while back I gave someone a list of the best few episodes to watch if you don't watch anything else. I put Haunting of Villa Diodati on the list purely because she's a fan of Mary Shelley, with the note that this one isn't as good and is from a bad era.
And I agree about Mary being the 'big name'. Everyone knows of Frankenstein. I couldn't name one thing that Percy wrote. The only reason anyone (outside of poetry circles) knows who he is today is that he's Mary's husband.
Any yeah, everyone is important has always been his attitude.
The set and costume work in Legend of The Sea Devils is very good, some of my favorite in the series so far.
I definitely disagree with you on The Witchfinders (quite an underrated story that I only have an issue with how the story resolves itself which is a bit... quick) and The Haunting of Villa Diodati (I don't think this story is disrespectful to Mary Shelley personally) but I can understand the other placements and your reasonings even if I enjoy some of those other stories like A Town Called Mercy and Vampires of Venice!
Good list 👍 the only one I’d change is Eaters of Light which I’d swap out for Victory of the Daleks. The actual episode itself is good but I hate the aggrandising of Churchill
I think it's high time we get an episode showing the bad side of Churchill, but seeing as he was voted Greatest Brit of the Millennium, I don't see any British writers (or the BBC) daring to do that.
I also dislike Haunting for the same reasons. There are very few things in history that are created by one individual or a few individuals, but sometimes there are great leaps, mostly of imagination, whether it be literature or mathematical concepts. To rob one of the few known creators of this while still doing the greeat men of history just rubs me the wrong way. (I also disliked the recent Isaac Newton open for related reasons, but that's a much longer tangent)
I actually like Vampires of Venice 😂😂😂
I like the Witchfinders and Empress of Mars but I also completely agree with your criticisms! 😂
12:25 miiiight wanna edit that, Vera. I know it wasn’t your intent. ✌️
I don’t know what you’re referring to.
@@Zelnyair I DID said “cheeky.”
My apologies Vera, I reread what I wrote and it comes off as snide when it wasn't my intention. It's just the auto-subtitles skipped the word, and I wasn't sure if the algorithm would be tripped or something. My bad, I'm not sure how that stuff works. ❤
Listened to your Pay More, Get Less video earlier today and you mentioned something about not being able to say "Enshittification" without tripping the algo so I guess I lept when I should've looked. 🤐
I don’t disagree with the ending of idiots lantern being a bad story/message about abuse. However I understood that the conversation at the end of the episode is about the future, and they say the young boy is the future. When they tell him to go after his dad the message is that people like his father, who symbolise the soon-to
-be defunct past, need to be welcomed in the new world too. There’s some stuff there about the impacts of the war and how his father was also harmed by the machismo patriarchal society that created him. There’s queer subtext too, pretty much confirmed by the writers saying they were going to make the boy character gay originally, and this hyper-masculine, aggressive father written up in the mid 2000s is a caricature of the roots of homophobia. The story, from that 2000s perspective,has the(subtextually) gay child inherit the unfortunate but somewhat inevitable burden of having to be the one to build the bridges for his father to cross, to educate him and welcome him to the future.
I think it still wasn’t done great. It felt like they had a few ideas they failed to mash together, and the way they framed the husband was above and beyond the man of the house archetype and the implied physical violence is where they lost the ability to land this ending. But I still get it, I can see it being the product of a queer showrunner in the 2000s who most likely felt the responsibility thrust upon himself to educate and show patience to the people around him
I wonder if "Fear Her" counts as a "historical episode" nowadays?
No. Next question please.
@@CouncilofGeeks Do you think it'll ever count as an "underappreciated" or "hidden gem" of an episode? ;)
No. Next question please.