Further Thoughts on "Let's Kill Hitler"

[kerravonsen]

After having read a few people's reactions, and thinking a bit myself, here are some further thoughts.

I wonder if the people who adored this episode are all River fans. Because some of the things I've seen people dislike about the episode have been the very things other people adored - both to do with River.

If Rose was RTD's speshul snowflake, then River is Moffat's. My own attitude towards River flips between liking her and finding her really annoying.

Mind you, I did like Alex Kingston's acting; she did channel the immature bad-girl Mels well. This was very much not the River we knew.

But, seriously - Melody Pond is a worse "war criminal" than Hitler? Someone who committed genocide is less evil than someone who committed a single murder? Talk about skewed priorities.

People have commented on the unbelievableness of River turning around in the course of ten minutes from someone who wanted to kill the Doctor to someone who saved his life. One of my theories was that the "giving them hell" thing of the "justice" people was a psychic field which confronts the person with the full evilness of what they've done. But on further thought, I'm not sure if that is what we're meant to think. After all, Moffat goes to great effort to make Mels even more of a Doctor fangirl than Amy (something which irritates me, because it belittles Amy's faithfulness to the Doctor's memory, in comparison). So perhaps what we're meant to believe is that River/Melody has always been in love with the Doctor, she didn't really want to kill him, it wasn't her fault, she's just a victim, programmed to do something she doesn't want to do.

Though that begs the question of why Mels didn't immediately try to kill the Doctor as soon as she saw him, rather than waiting until after she regenerated into River.

Leadworth crop circles! Why did I not squee about that before?

And I loved the completely stunned looks that they all had when the TARDIS crew realized that they'd just saved Hitler's life.
And can I say again how I loved Rory punching Hitler and shoving him in a cupboard?

I liked the shout-out to former companions Rose, Martha, and Donna in the scene where the Doctor asks for a voice interface - "guilt, guilt, and even more guilt". Indeed. Acknowledgement, without being emo about it. Good.

I've seen some people complain that it should have had Jack in that sequence. To which I respond, they only had so much time for that sequence. But that's an external explanation. However, tardis_stowaway gave an internal explanation that made me smile: Sexy-TARDIS ships Doctor/Rose. (grin)

After seeing the Confidential, there are a couple of things I'm certain of:
1) Amy and Rory are not going to get baby!Melody back.
Moffat didn't seem to be bothered about them not raising her, because he seems to think that being best friends with Mels is equivalent. (frowns)

2) Doppelganger-Doctor is going to turn up again.
This I am certain of because in the "story so far" sequence at the start of the Confidential, the Doppelganger-Doctor appears, and he wouldn't have been shown if he wasn't important to the storyline. Gun on the mantelpiece.

tardis_stowaway had a perfect description of this episode, which I must quote:
Let's Kill Hitler basically threw together a handful of shiny and wonderful things, a handful of total fail, and a few random plot elements from Moff's idea notebook that he hadn't found a way to include anywhere else. Then it stuck it all in a blender until it became a lumpy slurry of the wonderful and the infuriating and tried to pour the mixture into a too-small container.

The thing that I feared when Moffat took over has happened: he's writing below his capacity.

Comments

[vilakins]

But, seriously - Melody Pond is a worse "war criminal" than Hitler? Someone who committed genocide is less evil than someone who committed a single murder? Talk about skewed priorities.

Word.

It was pretty enjoyable apart from things like that. I was annoyed at the appearance of a character we'd never seen before, and given that I was expecting River to get out of that car, I really should have picked up on "Mels". I wonder if they named the baby after her, making it three closed loops (Mels getting Amy and Rory together because she knew they were her parents, River Song being called that because she will be). In retrospect, Mels was very River.

I didn't think they could ever get the baby back anyway because if they did it would change everything.

I thought River changed very quickly too, but I suppose she'd always had a fascination for the Doctor, and we don't know what he said to her. I winder why she didn't poison him again with the second kiss? (Or herself for that matter though it's (or will be) obviously one of her favourite methods).

[kerravonsen]

I wonder if they named the baby after her
Yes, they did. When Mels was regenerating, the Doctor remarked to Amy, "You named your daughter... after your daughter."

Mels getting Amy and Rory together because she knew they were her parents
I wouldn't say that she got them together. Pointing out that they fancy each other isn't quite the same thing, IMHO.

I didn't think they could ever get the baby back anyway because if they did it would change everything.

Oh, I agree, but I've seen some people remarking that they will be really cross at Moffat if they don't get the baby back; thus, some people actually expect it. I never expected it, not when we found out the baby was River. Too many things would unravel if River's history was changed.

Though oddly enough, Moffat doesn't seem to worry about Amy's history being changed. Someone pointed out that Amy has now had six different childhoods:
1) no parents, and Rory
2) no parents, no Rory
3) no parents, no Rory, no stars
4) parents and Rory, no Doctor
5) parents and Rory and Doctor
6) parents and Rory and Doctor and Mels

[kalypso]

I didn't think of that as something to worry about, though; when people started complaining about Amy and Rory suddenly acquiring a friend who hadn't been mentioned before, my response was (a) there was no reason why we should have been told everything about their childhood, and (b) Amy's childhood had been rebooted at least three times, with very significant people (ie parents and Rory) dropping out and/or reappearing, so it wouldn't be surprising if that happened with friends as well.

[watervole]

Just because we don't see Rory in all versions does not mean that he wasn't there.

[kalypso]

kerravonsen has listed all the versions of Amy's childhood that we know of to date, which is probably a couple more than I had (I don't necessarily see them all as non-overlapping alternatives, since it's not explicit that Mels hasn't been there before). But Rory is explicitly absent from her past from the moment he's erased from the timeline at the end of Cold Blood until the universe is rebooted in The Big Bang, even though she regained her memories of him when confronted with the Auton version. (Similarly she retained some memory of her parents - her mother's way with apples - although they had also been swallowed by the crack in time until the reboot restored them.)

[matgb]

After all, Moffat goes to great effort to make Mels even more of a Doctor fangirl than Amy

See, that wasn't my reading. Watching it twice, at every point in school, she's saying "this [bad thing] happened because The Doctor didn't stop it", I thought it was she blames the Doctor for not doing enough. But then, I didn't have a problem with the idea that she'd done the job she was programmed for and then didn't want the consequences, partially as a result of the reaction of everyone else.

But, seriously - Melody Pond is a worse "war criminal" than Hitler? Someone who committed genocide is less evil than someone who committed a single murder? Talk about skewed priorities.

Possible perspective-The Doctor is supposedly vitally important to the history of the universe in multiple multiple ways-from the perspective of 3000 years in the future, maybe his death caused massive, interstellar catastrophe? If her actions caused entire species to be wiped out, etc-we don't, yet, know, but I suspect we're going to learn more.

My big Q regarding the timelines thing-Amy's personal history has been rewritten multiple times, with her being raised both by her aunt and with her parents and having memories of both-is Mels part of either of those original upbringings, or is she a new rewrite into it caused subsequently?

[kerravonsen]

The Doctor is supposedly vitally important to the history of the universe in multiple multiple ways-from the perspective of 3000 years in the future, maybe his death caused massive, interstellar catastrophe? If her actions caused entire species to be wiped out, etc-we don't, yet, know, but I suspect we're going to learn more.

Hmmm, but they describe his death as a fixed point. Which implies that she didn't change history by killing him, which IMHO means that there weren't catastrophic consequences.
I'm not arguing that what she did isn't a crime, I just don't think that it's a war crime.

Another odd thing, now that I think about it, is that the Justice people were going after criminals that they think didn't pay for their crimes. But River was locked up in the Stormcage for years; it's not like she was let off Scott-free. Though I admit, she did tend to treat the Stormcage as if it were a hotel, rather than a prison.

is Mels part of either of those original upbringings, or is she a new rewrite into it caused subsequently?

IMHO, she's a new rewrite.

[matgb]

they describe his death as a fixed point. Which implies that she didn't change history by killing him, which IMHO means that there weren't catastrophic consequences.

That definitely doesn't follow, as they also say they're in the wrong bit of time for Hitler and they have to go later, as he's a fixed point.

I just don't think that it's a war crime

Frances Barber is very clear last week that she's "at war" and that it's been a very long one.. Obviously, I don't know, but during the Demon's Run era they've been 'at war' for a long time, apparently.

River was locked up in the Stormcage for years; it's not like she was let off Scott-free

How did she get into the Storm Cage? Are they from before she gets put there? I was assuming it was them, or their equivalents, that arrest her in the end and the Cage is part of "Justice Deptartment" procedure.

[kerravonsen]

How did she get into the Storm Cage? Are they from before she gets put there? I was assuming it was them, or their equivalents, that arrest her in the end and the Cage is part of "Justice Deptartment" procedure.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. The people in the Tesselator don't have to be from the same era as those who put her in the Stormcage, considering that they're time travellers.

[kalypso]

She's programmed to be obsessed with the Doctor. But the programming may give out at the point when she's fulfilled the mission to kill him; if that's her sole function, they probably didn't tell her what to do next, so her free will begins to kick in.

I haven't rewatched it yet, but I think the Doctor said "Time can be rewritten" for the second time in connection with River, the first being at the end of Flesh and Stone. Which makes me think that she may be the opposite of a fixed point in time and that, as with her mother, time is especially fluid around her.

[infiniteviking]

But, seriously - Melody Pond is a worse "war criminal" than Hitler? Someone who committed genocide is less evil than someone who committed a single murder? Talk about skewed priorities.

Gad, THIS. Even as much as the Doctor is a hero and too valuable to let anyone kill.

Moffat didn't seem to be bothered about them not raising her, because he seems to think that being best friends with Mels is equivalent. (frowns)

Yes, and she turned out so very well, didn't she. Amy and Rory (oh wait, he was busy being relentlessly bullied for fifteen years but hanging on anyway) should be proud. >___________>

[ladymercury-10.livejournal.com]

Melody Pond is a worse "war criminal" than Hitler? Someone who committed genocide is less evil than someone who committed a single murder? Talk about skewed priorities.

I keep seeing people talking about this. I didn't pick up that the show was suggesting this, but I was having trouble hearing a lot of the lines, so perhaps that's why. If it is indeed the case, I would imagine that the explanation is that by killing the Doctor, she's indirectly killing all the people he would save. Because the Doctor sort of holds the universe together, killing him would cause a lot of other problems. Sort of like killing a high-ranking government official is a big deal, except more so.

[kerravonsen]

I didn't pick up that the show was suggesting this, but I was having trouble hearing a lot of the lines, so perhaps that's why.

The mini-people inside the robot were saying things like "this is the big one" and "they'll let us take the next year off if we get her". So, yes, the show was definitely suggesting this.

[ladymercury-10.livejournal.com]

Ah, see, I didn't hear any of those things. I think they may have sped up the transmission on BBC America, because everything seemed to be moving too quickly, and I had even more trouble parsing the British accents than I usually do.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I think the mini-people's moral judgments were depicted as far from reliable.

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

But we surely weren't expected to see things from their point of view, since they were quite clearly shown as being bonkers.

[sahiya.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think the TARDIS had a lot to do with River's turn-around. You can see it in her face after she uses the TARDIS to rescue Amy and Rory - she looks completely stunned. So while the "give them hell" bit might have something to do with it, I think she already well on her way.

I am a River fan, and I'm certain that had something to do with the fact that I liked the episode (though I don't think that somehow makes me liking it less legitimate - I'm allowed to have favorite characters and like episodes that center around them). But I do agree that this episode would have done much better as a two-parter, especially since Moffat decided to throw in a secondary plot that could have stood all on its own. It felt very, very fast.

I don't agree that Moffat is consistently writing below his capacity. I think it's harder for him to make every episode he writes amazing when he's writing so many of them, but I adore "The Impossible Astronaut" and "Day of the Moon," and I've come to really love "A Good Man Goes to War" as well. I really like his episodes from S5, too, with the exception of "The Beast Below," which needed several more script revisions to make it what it could have been. I think he bit off more than he could chew in this ep, but it was still extremely enjoyable and far better than it would have been in the hands of a lesser writer.

[kerravonsen]

Actually, I think the TARDIS had a lot to do with River's turn-around. You can see it in her face after she uses the TARDIS to rescue Amy and Rory - she looks completely stunned.
Oh, that's a very good point!

I don't agree that Moffat is consistently writing below his capacity.
I didn't mean to give that impression, but I do think that this episode is below his capacity.

I think it's harder for him to make every episode he writes amazing when he's writing so many of them
That is the essence of my concern; that being show-runner and writing more episodes is too much for him to deal with.

[sahiya.livejournal.com]

There's also Sherlock as well. I do worry he's going to burn-out. He's talking an awful lot in interviews lately about how horrible his schedule is, and I can't imagine it's doing his creative process (or his home life) any favors.

[jhall1.livejournal.com]

Though that begs the question of why Mels didn't immediately try to kill the Doctor as soon as she saw him, rather than waiting until after she regenerated into River.

Maybe she's like a cat, and likes to play with her prey before killing it?

I didn't see the Confidential, but I have this theory that it's the doppelganger Doctor who gets killed in 2011. I think that we've also been given the clue that it isn't River who kills the Doctor in 2011. Given that what happens later for the Doctor happens earlier for River, if she believed that she'd "already" killed him in 2011 then why would she have tried to kill him in the latest episode?

[kerravonsen]

Given that what happens later for the Doctor happens earlier for River,

But it isn't a "given". Yes, it usually happens that they meet in reverse order, but not always. If they met strictly in reverse order then it would have been impossible for the Doctor to have met Melody-the-child in the spacesuit in 1969.

if she believed that she'd "already" killed him in 2011 then why would she have tried to kill him in the latest episode?

1) Why not? If she's programmed to kill him, she could be programmed to kill him every time she meets him, until she overcomes the programming.
2) The person in the spacesuit could still be River without her being Melody-the-child; thus the events of 2011 are not in River's past in this episode, but in her future. Apart from the encounter in 1969, this is the first time she meets the Doctor, so she tries to kill him.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

The thing that I feared when Moffat took over has happened: he's writing below his capacity.

I disagree, but am too tired right now to enumerate for you why I think so. :)