The Angels Take Manhattan

[Tono Makt]

Yup. It was a bad episode for Doctor Who. Love'em or hate'em, this was not the quality of episode that the Ponds deserved for their farewell. The Weeping Angels keep getting more and more like the Daleks in that they do whatever the writers need them to do at the time, even if it calls into question everything that has come before them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but when some things come up that the characters should question, like the Statue of Liberty and angels making noises, when it is just taken at face value in the show it has a tendency to draw negative attention to itself.

I'm sort of going to miss the Ponds. More Rory than Amy; Amy has worn thin on me over the past 10 or so episodes. I'm not sure what it is exactly that has changed, whether my natural inclination to drool over redheads overrode my natural inclination to find fault in everything so I didn't notice the flaws in the character and the direction/acting of the character, or whether she's been changed over that time. But I'm not upset to see Amy go. But I'm going to miss Rory, as he's turned into a far better character as he went along. (Also going to miss Brian. Brian rocks. So much better than Rose's mom.) He's been a breath of down to earth common sense in a crazy universe and that perspective is so fresh for Doctor Who. It's going to be a poorer show without Rory.

 

[MmmFiber]

I mean Smith is good, but I cant ever take his anger seriously since he comes off like a child being mad. Where as Tennant can really show rage and anger and act like the master.

"The Waters of Mars" did what they are trying to show here much better. That the doctor loses focus without humans around him. That he starts seeing things as BENEATH him much like the Master does.

Hmmm...as much as I love Smith, I have to agree with you on this point. Tennant does angry far better than Smith, but then Tennant gets too emo at the other end of the spectrum. Take Smith's happy and Tennant's mad, and I think you have the perfect characterization.

I think that I'm more inclined to like 9's mad. When he got mad, I thought that it was a legitimate possibility that he would tear the universe apart. 10 and 11 both have that silly/quirky happiness... they just could never really convince me they were truly mad. Ok, maybe some later Tennant scenes could as long as he didn't get emo.

Some of my (and my wife's) favorite parts of the series is when someone hurts his companions and you feel like he taps into all of the hidden anger over the Time War, death, destruction, and past pain he has gone through. I like the deep contrast between the crazy-fun-eccentric side of his character and the rage that is bubbling somewhere below the surface.

On Topic: This episode was poor. It lacked logical consistency or much logic at all. When the camera panned over the Statue of Liberty, I thought "they wouldn't do THAT. That's way too dumb." Then they did. Hopefully the Christmas episode is better. But, we get a new companion whose actress has already been introduced as a dalek that (probably) died... so, my hopes aren't super high as far as having a "logical" episode goes. It will more than likely be fun, though.

 

[Tallim]

There should have been a scene where they tied Stephen Moffat to a chair and shot him once for every episode of this series he's made.

Wait, did I say scene? I meant documentary.

I'd watch that! I wonder if it could be made into a long running series. Would probably be a lot of people's favourite new show.

 

[BrotherRool]

That was retconed out. Time Lords can regenerate an infinite number of times now.

Edit: Actually I think they made the limit 502 or something silly like that

From the Extended stuff I read, at the beginning of the Time War each Timelord had their number of regenerations reset. So Eccelston was 1, 12 to go. Though I think Tennant used up two in his run.

I wonder if we will still be stuck with River. Most likely.

Lady liberty is copper, but the Angels are stone.

No the limit was completely taken out of canon. Smith's Doctor was straight up asked how many times he can regenerate in a Sarah Jane Adventures episode and he responded by saying there was no limit. Sarah Jane Adventures series is considered canon and it was written by RTD.

I'm pretty sure it was an off the cuff joke that fans leapt on. As far as I'm aware no-one came out and said he wasn't just being flippant.

I'm open to it being canon, but I'd be willing to wager a fair amount that it was just a joke, apart from anything, the Doctors lives are a well known fact amongst the general British population, never mind just fans, they wouldn't be able to justify changing that notion just through a spin-off episode. At worst we'll still going to get an episode explaining why that's the case (of course it's Doctor Who so the explanation pretty much can't be satisfying, because the sacrifice about the show being so fun for everyone and the thing it is, is there's no hard and fast rules and space magic is the name of the game)

 

[Crystalite]

Ah yes, the plotholes...
I know this is a show where we are supposed to ignore them, but it is also a show targeted primarily at children and nerds. Nerds who will notice and be bothered by everything you get wrong.
The thing is, we do actually have a tolerance for this kind of thing, because no story involving timetravel will ever work out perfectly. But at least make an effort!
I guess that is my biggest complaint with the last two or three seasons. It feels like they don't even make an effort to think things through anymore.

also:
The statue of liberty can walk unseen across half of New York?
That is not scary. It is just dumb. They even mention how New York is the city that never sleeps. Even if that thing managed to somehow take a step or two unobserved, the resulting panic and news coverage would freeze it right in place...
But I liked the angel smiling! That was actually creepy. But apart from that they seem to have missed the point of the angels entirely by now. It really isn't that hard to grasp what makes them scary, how could they miss it so badly?

As far as the emotional component went, I quite liked it. I like the Ponds, I even like River. But I found the scene of them jumping off the roof the be far more climactic then the graveyard scene, but I get why they don't want them to go out in straight up suicide, thats ok.

I know many people dissagree, but I would like to see more of River. We keep hearing how much she is in love with him, but we never really see them have an actual relationship. We saw a bit of that now, but not nearly enough for me to actually believe in them in any meaningfull way. Relationships should be developed just much as characters, and I'm still missing that here.

And as for the final paradox, I get it. Time can be rewritten so long as you have not read it. So let's say history books don't count, for some reason, but a gravestone does. The gravestone does not say anything! Except that there is a gravestone with the Ponds name on it. It does not say how they died. Or when. Only how old they where. So if the doctor goes back in time, collects the Ponds, sets up the gravestone (as a fake) they could all live happily ever after. And that is ignoring the fact that "Amelia and Rory Williams" are names that probably occur more than once in the world.

I liked the episode, actually. I liked the emotional stuff, especially all the domestic foreshadowing at the start, but this stuff is really starting to bug me. Not just because it makes no sense, but because I feel that there hasn't been enough effort of thought put into it.

 

[PsiMatrix]

Oh, the season break was announced a couple of years ago.
Mainly because they wanted to shift DW into the autumn line up, not the summer dead zone.

No one watched the tv in June, July and August as no one is indoors or in the country.

There's a press release somewhere where Moffet talks about it.

It was more because the London 2012 Olympics was on and felt that everyone would be watching that instead since the BBC was doing all the coverage.

Posting my FB comment here as well:

First thing - River lies as much as the Doctor. She's also a non-sequitor to the Doctor's chronology so she may know he already 'left them behind' because he hasn't told her yet. So she shows up in New York 1938 to say hi to dad because the Doctor will have told her.

This also leaves a get-out clause should they be returned for a special or two or come back later when the Doctor has regenerated. The gravestones were there and we know their ages HOWEVER there was no date revealed. It's quite possible that it was put there by their future selves to prevent a paradox because they know they'll get out of it eventually and be reunited. River might be waiting for them or they might be in another year like 1958.

This episode does add to the whole Rory/Chuck Norris thing that's been going on. "Rory died twice in the same night and the universe STILL wouldn't let him die".

 

[Lex Darko]

I've been re-watching all of the "pond" episodes, and I've realized that I don't really care for the last two seasons of this show at all. I suppose at the time I was just happy to have new Doctor Who but now in hindsight most of the episodes have been boring or just sucked in comparison to past seasons.

Why? No, consistency with the "rules" of time. I know some people will say their are no real "rules" or that logic shouldn't apply. But the Doctor uses logic to fix problems so saying logic shouldn't apply is like saying everything is magic and this isn't science fiction just fantasy.

But on topic of this episode and why I really didn't like it. In "The Waters of Mars" the Doctor knew that everyone on the colony was going to die and that people on earth would never learn why. But he changed it anyway saved 3 people saw the timeline change and the universe didn't go ka-boom. In "A Christmas Carol" the Doctor literally goes back in time after meeting Karzan and starts changing his past. But now suddenly there some rule that if you know the future you can't change it? What? Where did that come from and if that's the case how can the doctor do anything in the past ever?

In these past seasons there have been so many aborted timelines, but now instead of going back in time to stop Rory from being abducted in the first place we're told that doing that would rip time? Another thing is how did that angel escape a paradox that was supposed to erase all the angels? How would it remember Rory, and how would it know right where they were to grab him? This episode makes so little sense that I don't even care that ponds are gone I only hope all the magic mcguffins and silly rules go with them.

 

[Vuirneen]

At the start of the episode, we see three statues of children on the fountain. Then, there's only two. The giggling noise when Rory came back with the coffee, was the confirmation that the child statue touched Rory. So that's how he got sent back. Rory himself never realised it.

 

[Azuaron]

River was upset at the Doctor for wasting his regeneration power because they have a limited number of regenerations (remember that River used up all of her regenerations to cure the Doctor from poison). So he basically killed one of his "lives" to cure something that would have healed on its own in a couple months.

Eh, I don't buy that he used up a whole regen just to heal her wrist. But even if he did, they're his to use.

It seems like it must be a whole regen (or half or something), or anytime someone get injured he'd just walk up and poof heal them. Or it's a plot hole.

If my wife got shot in the leg to prevent me getting a broken wrist, I'd be pretty upset with her. Sure, it's her leg and blood, but, yeah, I'd be pretty upset.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

What are they, you ask?

Quite simple--they're his in-laws!

I did like the episode, though. The idea of an Angel farm, with all of those little time bubbles all over the place just making a giant fracture across 1938 New York, was a terrifying idea. All of those people trapped and scared, being made to live to death, slowly fueling all those Angels...

Could have done without the Statue of Liberty, though. That was a little much.

The rooftop, scene, though, shoved a lump in my throat that wouldn't leave. And then Rory quipped about who else would die over and over again, and I lost it. The two of them, together, like that, having to help each other to never leave each other...that was nice. Terrible, but nice.

But while the moment was great, the whole damn season has been banging on about them leaving, so, on the positive side, things from here on out should at least get better, since we don't have to keep saying "Oh, but the Ponds are going to leave in T minus". Hopefully the new companion can keep him from getting all moody again.

 

[Pebkio]

Welp... this new Doctor's damnably weak will got Amy and Rory killed.. finally. I remember him making a go at leaving them behind to save them. Amy even had her ad thing which was basically saying "I've left the doctor behind and moved on with my life". I guess Moffat can't be bothered to cast anyone new... as well as writing a cohesive story... keep dramatic tension without threatening everyone's life... avoid plot holes... stick to continuity... keep a positive tone...

Writing this has been hard, because it's hard to articulate that I think Moffat is one of the worst things to happen to Doctor Who while still staying in context of the episode. I will say this though, the episode featured something I am sick to death with that Moffat won't stop doing: The Doctor doesn't fix any of the problems anymore. He's been doing this a lot lately. Even worse (although not seen in this episode) is that he's now actively creating the problems that other people have to fix. I don't know why Moffat has taken away the Doctor's confidence and know-how, but I guess it's to make him more relatable.

I don't need to relate to the Doctor! That's what his companions are for!

The Doctor is 1200 years old, has been through two wars and prevented about fifty others, he's been to the far future and witnessed a million billion random events over the span of his lifetime. There is no reason I should relate to him. And Moffat should stop turning him into a whoopsie clown. If you really have to make his companions do something good, have them save HIM so HE can save the day. Or have them involved in a B plot that creates a change which allows him to save the day. God, I miss Rose.

...remember when the Doctor would suddenly smile when all seemed lost and run off to try a crazy scheme that would save the day? Even the 11th doctor used to do that in the fifth season. Good time, good times...

 

[Quorothorn]

I've said this before but the Weeping Angels should have remained a one off. Each time they are trotted out they have previously established lore messed with and they lose impact.

Blink was brilliant, each subsequent angel episode has been increasingly worse (hopefully) culminating in this episode's monstrosity.

Internal consistency has pretty much been obliterated since Moffat took over. I know things got changed in the past but you can't even rely on something said in the same series being true a couple of episodes later now.

This post speaks to a major reason why I've lost interest in Doctor Who the past few years. Moffat was, it seems, much better as a once-a-season or so writer than as a show runner. And the Weeping Angels are edging towards the overused and overpowered realm of the Daleks. I'm of the opinion that the Whoverse doesn't need yet another arbitrarily functionally invincible enemy.

Also, I outright hate that Moffat seriously thought he could make the Statue of Liberty an Angel. Angels are, when "locked", solid, single-piece statues made of stone; the Statue of Liberty was assembled from many separate pieces shipped over from France, and also is NOT MADE OF STONE--as I recall, it's copper and iron. It's such a stupid idea on so many levels ("The idea that there is ever a point at which someone isn't looking at the Statue of Liberty is pretty ridiculous" being another) I can hardly believe it showed up in a TV show expecting to be taken remotely seriously.

 

[jamesbrown]

I think companions are supposed to be the Doctor's moral compass. The Doctor has shown to not be using his own over the past couple of years. Even beforehand in Tennant's years Donna was very much a guide for the Doctor's actions (Fires of Pompeii for example where she forced him to go back and rescue someone, anyone, because that was better than nothing). The Doctor even tells Rose that the clone grown from his hand that genocided the Daleks was him before they first met, and "You (Rose) made me better". Especially after the events he had to shake off regarding the Time War.

With the regards to the actual story, the whole reason behind the paradox and the Doctor not being able to go back to rescue Rory at the end is explained near the start of the episode when the Doctor tells Amy she can't read to the end of the book because it forces the events to happen. Rory found out that he was going to die in that apartment building so they had to force a paradox to stop it. He saw his own name on the gravestone just before being zapped by the Angel so the Doctor couldn't go rescue him as it would cause another, bigger paradox. Amy's name wasn't originally on the gravestone but after she made the choice to follow Rory back, the Doctor could no longer follow because he knows her fate and can't change it without making a bigger mess.
The same point is made throughout the episode, the Doctor is originally ecstatic that River managed to free herself from the Angel without breaking her wrist as he had been told by Amy that he would "break something", so he thought he could change predetermined future without much effort. The fact that River had to break her wrist in order to free herself reinforced the idea the episode created about forced futures through knowledge.
Whether you agree with the science behind idea presented in the episode or not, it's reinforced throughout to explain the story.

11's reaction to losing Amy and Rory is what I think is most important about the episode, something I've seen very little other reviewers or fans talk about. Smith's Doctor is openly distraught at the turn of events at the end of the episode, much more so than Tennant. Who either a) Appeared emotionless to Rose and didn't even cry until she was gone. b) Didn't even try to stop Martha (yeah she didn't die or anything but he still could have showed some sadness). c) The Doctor-Donna's death by his own hand had him show very little outward emotion. Even the obvious sacrifice he made for Wilf was drastically underpinned by his "It's just not fair. This is my reward" speech. Which was more general shouting at the universe and not getting his own way.
11 looks for the first time since the series started again, genuinly upset at the loss of Amy and Rory. Maybe something to do with the whole "First face this face saw. You are seared onto my hearts forever" thing.

Yeah the Statue of Liberty thing was a bit much, but it only appeared twice and didn't end up being a stupid end boss or anything so it didn't bother me too much. Other than that I much enjoyed this episode, very emotional by the end.

I Agree with this person, much better take; maybe it has something to do with watching doctor who since way back when, but I feel quite differently then the author on all these episodes

 

[dls182]

Am I the only one that enjoyed the idea of the Statue of Liberty being an Angel? Ignoring the pointlessness of it (as previously mentioned, it couldn't take a step without someone noticing and looking at it again), it's a little creepy to think that sitting right next to a massive city, there's an enormous evil being waiting. New York's blackouts would been fun!

 

[Zydrate]

I'm quite ready for 12 to be honest.

I adored Tennant. He was great.
Matt Smith isn't too bad but he just... doesn't look the part.

 

[Flight]

As glad as I was to see Rory and especially Amy (finally!) go, their actual moment(s) of farewell made me teary-eyed. I very much could have done without the abominable River Song showing up ever again, but I suppose one can't have everything, and she wasn't as utterly awful in the episode as she was in the last one she showed up. I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one to find the Weeping Statue of Liberty ridiculous, too. I liked the tone at the beginning of the episode, and Matt Smith was brilliant as ever, in my opinion. I'm not the biggest fan ever of Steven Moffat as showrunner (I preferred his standalone episodes, though series 5 of NuWho is my favorite), but I do believe he hit one out of the park with his casting of Matt Smith.

I'll be glad to see this new companion; the actress, from what little I've seen of her, seems capable and is as cute as a button. I just wish we didn't have a split season yet again; that got old in series 6, in my opinion.

 

[Kingjackl]

I really wanted to like this one and there are a few bits they did well, like the final goodbye and the scene where Amy and Rory are about to jump off the building. Trouble was, it was hard to enjoy it when the plot holes could be spotted from a mile away.

A few people have brought up the fact that the Doctor could still visit Amy and Rory, just not New York, but I more want to know why did that guy throw Rory in the basement with the Weeping Babies and why didn't River seem the slightest bit concerned about it? It just feels like an unnecessary dick-headed thing to do. Also, Weeping Angel of Liberty is stupid. I thought it sounded like a cool idea, but it should have been a one-off gag, not part of the plot.

Finally, that last angel at the graveyard was a cock. Ruining the happy ending and when the Doctor and Amy are having their tearful goodbyes, he's just standing their with a look on his frozen face like: "Oi, could you lot just get on with it already? Some of us places to be!"

 

[Undeed]

I think it works, so long as you can accept that the Doctor found the afterword before he decided to go on a rescue trip. Consider: He very nearly saw them die right after he promised that would never happen to Brian, and then he finds out they're safe and happy? Good end, all things considered. Only real loose end is Rory's dad.

 

[Olrod]

The Statue of Liberty isn't "an Angel" it was *taken over* by the Angels. When Rory's paradox killed them off it undid the Angels ever taking over most of the statues in Manhattan (including the Statue of Liberty).

 

[[The]Rock]

Dammit, who linked to TVTropes?

I've been there since I saw the reply and now there're so many new posts.