DOCTOR WHO: LET'S KILL HITLER Spoiler Thread

[filkertom]

... Okay, I am stone cold in love with Mel. Hotcha.

Comments

[kosaginolegion.livejournal.com]

It didn't occur to me until this AM that the character had a number of River Song's more manic traits.

Funny that.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

The first time I watched the episode, it never even crossed my mind that Mels might be River/Melody (I didn't even catch the similarity of names). Even when she started talking about having planned to marry the Doctor when she grew up, it still didn't click. When she told the Doctor that he should ask her parents now, because "they're right here", I was thoroughly confused... until she started glowing and then (as Mels said) "the penny drops".

What's funny is that watching it the second time, there are actually lots of fairly blatant clues about her identity and her relationship to Amy and Rory (especially Amy). Her personality just screams River Song, and every time she got into trouble, Amy/Mum was there.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

Wonderful episode. The fact that it wasn't really about Hitler at all, and he only made a brief, comic appearance, was unexpected. And of course, the plot and character revelations were amazing. As was a lot of the dialog, the first face-off between The Doctor and River in particular.

My one disappointment (heavy spoiler here) was that, in the end, it felt like the whole episode was a setup for removing River's ability to regenerate. Which looks to me like a clue that she's going to die by season's end.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

But we already know when and how she dies.

[kirylyn.livejournal.com]

but we know that she *does* die forever. Silence of the Library.

yes, a LOT of River Song's/Melody Pond's background was filled in!

[shadowofsummer.livejournal.com]

It at least explains why she could only stand there and shoot at the impossible astronaut when they saw the Doctor die in Utah, as opposed to trying to pull the whole let's-use-regeneration-energy-to-fix-everything when he got shot halfway through his own regeneration cycle.

[archiver-tim.livejournal.com]

The remainer of the titles of episodes have been released. I seen them on wikipedia, should also be at BBC / Doctor Who. Season finale title could be a spoiler or entisement.

[his-spiffyness.livejournal.com]

I liked it. The fact that we now have the flip, where it's River is the one in the dark about the Doctor, changes their relationship quite dramatically. I also suspect in the future we might be seeing more scenes out of time for River, sometimes she'll be on top of things, sometimes she's still learning.

I'm also wondering if Mels might be returning. She was just a child when she was left in 1969, so The Silence had to have picked her up and put her in Leadworth to set up her meeting with the Doctor. Plus, I suspect we have two competing timelines occuring at the same time. After all, River did seem surprised as the rest of them when the second shot was fired.

[thebluefool.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that this will probably be the last appearance of Alex Kingston as River Song. We saw her last appearance in the Library, and now we saw her first appearance in 1938 Germany. Technically, if she's still running straight backwards timewise, that actress won't be River/Melody anymore.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

I don't think she's been running straight backwards, as you put it - the very fact of the journals implies, to me, that her timeline with the Doctor is a lot of loops and whorls. And I don't really see any room for any actress other than Alex Kingston to play the role, and I sincerely doubt River's story is simply over. As they have an excuse for any aging Alex Kingston might happen to do (since apparently River believes she can adjust her age post-regeneration, and intends to do so to mess with people), there's nothing stopping them from pulling River in again and again to continue her story at different points in her personal timeline.

Also, time can be rewritten, and I strongly suspect it will be this season - and drastically so.

[thebluefool.livejournal.com]

I don't entirely believe she's running straight backwards, but SHE thinks she is. And yeah, they're going to have to come up with something about time being rewritten, or the whole "true" death of the Doctor is going to be problematic.

[shadowofsummer.livejournal.com]

We've also never seen the alluded-to next-to-last meeting between the Doctor and River where he gives her his (former incarnation's) sonic screwdriver and cries but doesn't tell her why.

[shadowofsummer.livejournal.com]

Stephen Moffatt, I am disappoint.
For someone who did a lot of foreshadowing up to a season in advance for some of his twists, suddenly deciding Rory and Amy had a lifelong friend they'd never really thought to mention and that we'd never seen before seemed a little odd to me.
I think a shiver probably went up the spine of a lot of old-time Whovians when a loud, grating, character called 'Mel' appeared. Ugh... Bonnie Langford.

I was disappointed that an episode called 'Let's Kill Hitler' basically ended its involvement with Hitler with him being locked in a cupboard at the end of the first act; it kinda falls afoul of the principle of Chekov's Gun. You can't have a loaded gun locked in a drawer in the first act and not have it go off in act three, and you can't have Adolf Hitler locked in a cupboard in the first act and not do something with it in act three.

Part of my problem here is that we're finally learning enough about River that she's losing that alluring air of mystery she's had thus far; I still have faith (between his Doctor Who episodes and the entirety of Coupling) that Stephen Moffatt has something planned that will blow me away by the end of the season. I don't think he's done screwing with us yet.

[sdelmonte]

That pretty much sums it up for me.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

Do you _really_ enjoy overthinking a show to death, or is it an uncontrollable reflex like sneezing?

This is Dr. Who. The show that has a rich history of plot holes, canon contradictions and inexplicable story elements that were just thrown in there because one of the writers said "Wouldn't it be fun if..."

And if that weren't enough to get you to stop nitpicking, have you ever considered this might be a prelude to future episodes? Where the Doctor figures out that Amy and Rory _didn't_ have a friend named Mel, but now they do, and that's his big clue as to where the Silence is hiding and what they are up to?

No, of course not. You can find a million flaws but speculation is a frightening dark forestof doubt and uncertainty.

Or is this a game? Nerdopoly, where you get scored on spotting inconsistencies and bonus points for obsessing on them to the point where you can't enjoy the show any more?

Me, I happen to enjoy shows that start off one way and shift into something different and unexpected. I am so fed up with Checkov's Gun telegraphing the entire story so there's no surprise or suspense that I'd like to outlaw it, except I can't because there's too many in favor of the right to bear metaphors.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

Creatively-inclined folks like to pay attention to how a story is constructed. That doesn't mean we can't get lost in the excitement and the "OOH THAT'S RIVER THAT'S SO COOL!", but sometimes that's not quite enough.

The absence of Mels prior to this episode is glaring. For someone who seems like she would have been the logical choice for maid of honor, the way they waved aside her absence from the wedding was a bit too offhand. All in all, her sudden retroactive insertion feels very "Dawn Summers"ish.

Now, Moffat is no hack, and there's a good chance that the retconning is intentional and will lead to something. Maybe the reveal that Mels is River is meant to indicate that this is a recent (whatever that means) modification of their pasts by their daughter. But it still sticks out like an unexplained sore thumb. Noticing it doesn't mean we don't like the show or even the episode.

Many of us do enjoy "overthinking" a show, and we don't at all think that it kills the show to talk about it. Feel free not to participate in such discussion, but please lay off with the "it's just a show, man!" Or else I'll start prattling about stardates!

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

As to the absence of Mels in previous episodes, why is that a big deal? The Doctor's companions had a life before they entered the blue box, but how often do we viewers hear about it? They've had friends, family, relationships, jobs, but we rarely see anybody from their pre-Doctor lives in the show. Now one pops up and suddenly we're supposed to cry foul? Is one of the cardinal rules of writing for Who "Thou shalt not admit companions had a past"? You think maybe that's why the Doctor takes them in as companions, because their lives up to that point were terribly lonely, devoid of any friends or relatives?

Although to be honest, one of the things I like about the new Doctors is the inclusion of the families. Makes the companions more than shallow catalysts.

In the forums I skim daily I've been seeing a lot of this "How _DARE_ they bring in a new character without at least twenty episodes of hinting or exposition!" from the same people who complained that the style of chairs in Hitler's office weren't time appropriate. I can't ignore these superficial, normalficial, or subficial posts of outrage because they're annoying and keep popping up.

Now if they went about it like "It's odd that Mel popped up so suddenly, do you think there's something more involved?" then it's a worthy topic of conversation, but when it's used as an excuse to give the entire episode a bad grade, totally ignoring the way-cool robot spaceship, then I really have to put my foot down on the throw rug that changed from one scene to the next and register my counter-complaint.

Hmmmm... maybe there _should_ be a game you play based on inconsistencies and errors, something like a combination bingo and scrabble. You score in the days that follow each episode but lose or gain points based on following episodes, like if you claim the sudden appearance of Mel was nothing more than hack writing and the group consensus agrees you get points, but then as the series progresses the whole Mel thing turns into something significant then you lose points, as do those who voted to agree with you. A film geek social game... hmmmm....

But.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

Mels is clearly not just a random person from their past. She's a central figure in their lives, the reason they started dating, the closest friend either of them has apart from each other. That's why the total lack of mention is suspicious. Hopefully it's more Moffat coolth on the way, but if not, it's definitely a valid basis for disappointment with the writing.

Re: But.

[kosaginolegion.livejournal.com]

One thought, however, is that the same thing that happened to Amy's parents in season 5 happened to Mel. In 5, the relationship might have been given its impetus by what happened in the first episode and by the end of 5, Mel was 'restored' into the line.

Or, perhaps, added in later by the Silence.

Re: But.

[vik_thor]

This. Amy's past has already had major rewrites/retcons, what is the addition to a friend?

Re: But.

[zeekar.livejournal.com]

Also, look, there is simply NO WAY that a stardate of 1312.4 for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" jibes with a stardate of 1329.1 for "Mudd's Women". Any unit value that makes 17 units long enough for the ship to undergo a massive refit approximately doubles the length of the "5-year mission". And that's still ten times as long as you have to somehow squeeze in all three of "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Miri", and "Dagger of the Mind" in season two...

;)

Re: But.

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

I'm sure some people had the same problems coming to grips with time zones, railroad schedules and telegraphs. Maybe with all that warping around it's relative to the ship. There you go, look at it as a physics problem, you've got the stardates, the sequence of events, distance travelled and all of that, so figure out how it works. Think of it as a temporal black box. First person who figures it out will go down in history as the uber-geek's uber-geek.

Also, I figured out how to make the film geek fantasy fallacy game to work. Now to learn javascript and HTML5 to implement it.

[archiver-tim.livejournal.com]

From the preview/trailer information, it did look like it would be "Let's Save Hitler".

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

I actually liked the fact that "Let's Kill Hitler" wasn't really about Hitler at all.

[smparadox.livejournal.com]

I too thought the retconning of Mel was odd - until it was revealed that she was River, then it made sense.

[dysprog.livejournal.com]

I think I was supposed to be surprised when Mal regenerated into River. Thing is, as soon as she showed up and was named I was already thinking, "hey, I wonder if...". So at the big reveal I was not thinking "HOLY CRAP!" but rather. "heh, figured."

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

Since the Doctor and River are meeting each other in reverse order (each time the Doctor meets River is the previous time they met for her), I guess that is the last time we see River Song :( And from the episode, I assume that was the first (and last) time that Mel met the Doctor. So much for River being the Doctor's wife theory.

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

The one thing that puzzles me about Mels = River is the time line...

At the end of "Day of the Moon", we see a scene in New York City that is labelled "Six Months Later", which would be late 1969 or early 1970. If, as Mels said, she regenerated into a toddler, how can she be roughly the same age as Amy and Rory?

At the risk of buying a ticket for the conspiracy train, some part of my brain keeps going back to the infamous "1990" date on Rory's name tag, the first time we see him. I know that it's supposedly a "production error", but it seems like an odd coincidence that 1990 just happens to be about 20 years after Mels regenerated into a toddler (rather than the 40ish years that it would be in 2010).